The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-05-18 00:00:00

smelters ; hut he would ask their Lordship., IMO
these escellent persons who composed the Scotch
church less deserving of political confidence, leas at-
tached to the principles of our civil Constitution, or
less firm in their •Ilegiance in the King. than the
eioni(iets of the Church of England ? No ; their
fidelity end attachment to the Houle of Brunie ick
had been conspicuous features in their character, end
their loyal rnsiduct, joined to ell the other qualities
mf good suhjects, hail gained them a asfe admission
In all civil employments of she Slate. Here, per.
11p*. lie should be told, that although the Chinch of
S:ritietol dial not own the King', supremacy in spiri.
teal Taller!, it differed from the Church of Rome in
this respect, that it acknowledged no foreign juris-
diction. But even this diaduction did not esist bee
seven the Roman Catholics and soother sect,'
which. refusing, like them, to take the oath of
supremacy, coeld not yet be excluded from the pri-
vileges which they were denied. He alleded to
the Maturities, who acknowledged the authority
of a (uo ign Bishop, and who therefore presented
• case in point. The venerable Priest sitting at
Kiln, did not claim a more absolute dominion over
the faith aids adherents than the Mnravian Bishop
did over those who followed his system. Yet we
thought of enquiring into the tenets of this met
for the purpose of refusing them political privileges.
The progress of knowledge had been of late attended
with its inseparable associate.liberality of sentiment;
it had softened religions intolerance, and introduced
Christian candour instead of sectarian bigotry. Its
influence em the question now before the House was
evident—it had removed the antiquated prejudices of
rulers and people. lie (the Bishop of N.) professed
himself no advocate of indiscriminate innovation or pre-
cipitiite change; but he professed himself equally
hostile to that obdurate obstinacy that opposed itself
to any alteration of the law, however salutary, or
e a. *activism-dation of our system to times and cif.
cumatances, however necestary. In this changeable
scene of human life, we could not with safety remain
statiotiaty, end ought to learn liberality from the
age it. which we lived. it was thedety of the House
to let England cease from this day forward to be the
only country in Europe where intolerance was eats.
blisl eti by law, where religious opinions excluded
from civil office, where men were obliged to 'effen-
di r their rights for the sake of their conscience, and
where an appeal ass made against equal privileges to
Statutes which had been occasioned by infernal in-
ventions and plots of the 1411101,1 of wickedness in a
oupeist Woes age. Since that time, the Catholics had
given up the abominable doctrines of which they were
accused, sod on which the laws agaitilt them wine
foetid/id. Would any man in his sensed now assert
Ilia' they maintained the principles which at first or.
casioned their exclusion from office ; end if they did
rte .1, why continue the Stators that perpetuated that
eat-lesion ?—( Beer !)
The Bishop of PETER BOROUGH began by pro.
teasing himself a blend to toleration iii its most en.
larged sense, bet contended that the present (lentils's
dud not concern toleration ; it related to the removal
of political disability, and the eatension of civil
power. It had, however, been maintained, that the
exclusion of men from civil racy on account of fe.
ligioes opinions was in fact intolerance, though no
positive punishment was inflicted, because the refusal
of advantages to the Catholics on account of their
tenets, which others of • different religion possessed,
operated in fact as • punishment. He was no friend
to intolerasee, seder whatever name disguised, or
from whatever quarter it came; end he was not one
of those who would agree to charge upon the Catho-
lics opinions which they had discarded, as a ground
for refiesisie them the privileges which they claimed.
(to no such discarded principles did be now argue.—
Ile would not 'moose the Claims of the Petitioners
because they maintained certain abitrect doctrine,
that differed from the Creed of the Church of Eng-
land, but Lecsome these doctrines, abstract in them-
seises, and therefore not coming witliiii the scope of
civil regulation, were connected with others of a dif-
ferent description, which, in his opinion, effected those
who held them in their qualification for political
power. A man might, for itistsoce, bold the doctrine
of (consubstantiation, and still, as a good subject, be
entitled In political power ; bat if, in addition to
the doctrine of transehstantiation, he likewise be.
Roved that any foreign Prince, Potentate, or Pre-
late, could claim or ought to exercise any oaths-
sity, spititeal or temporal, within this realm, be
did not think him equally entitled to political privi-
lege es a mats who abjured this latter doctrine. Now,
where the allegiance which those who professed dif-
ferent religious systems were enabled to swear was
unequal, their claim to privilege ought in his mind
to he unequal, and the advantage ought to
be to favour of the members of the Church of Eng-
land who tootle no reservation in their oath of ally.
glance. Nur could the Petitioners get quit of this
objection by distinguishing between allegiance in Irs-
porel and apiiiieal matter.. There were memberless
eases in which they could not be separated. But in
considering the claims of the Petitioners to civil
power, it become the liovoe to view them in reference
In the Established Church. Ail that they now
demanded was admission to civil authority ; hut if
that were granted, would they step there ? When, ,
as adherents of the church, they attained political in-
fluence, mast they not be disposed to employ it for
the oil silent of their religious spur ? Most
not their inclination to exert their power for the es-
tension of their faith increase, as in other similar
caeca, with their facilities of exercising it ? Would
not their possession of civil privilege authorise a hope
of spiritual dominion, and encenrage attempts to at.
Lain it ? The Court of Rome haul not changed its
temper and love of power so much es some Noble
Lot& bad declined. The eider of the Jesuits which
had been restated had net I eon restored in vain.—
Nur were the Roman Catholic clergy barkwsrd to
support their church, or negligee( to extend its
power. They had tint only the common motives of
zeal which belonged to other religious sects, but they
...roe impelled by en oath In rarest themselves for
gaining an ascendancy. This oath sworn not only
Lys Bishops and Dignitaries of the church, bet by
revery Priest. The mewls' words of this oath were
—" Sanctum relieionem Catholics.' Rotuma erre
.10, et sanctum mitosis°, Romatsam Gaoling% ma-
!ie.., et duraitism (minium ercliAlerum egnosco."—
This showed that they considered their church as the
.i•• he of all cl.tutl.r;: inchilpg of COVISC the