Page images
PDF
EPUB

78, edit. 1773)

And can it be now made

a question in the 19th century, whether the fullest privileges of the constitution should be restored to the Catholics of the present day! Shall they alone be debarred from the full enjoyment of its benefits, whose ancestors first secured these inestimable blessings? Such a political degradation must be repugnant to the feelings of a grateful and generous nation.If I am rightly informed, you and your friends reject with a species of sanctified horror, the term emanci pation, which the Catholics employ, when they solicit the privileges of British subjects. Emancipation is a deliverance from slavery of one kind or another. As to the situation of the Roman Cotholics, who are excluded from the benefits of the constitution, I am justified in calling it a state of civil servitude, by the authority of a great man, whom I was once proud to call my friend, and whose political maxims are deemed oracular by the statesmen of the present time. "To be under the state," says Mr. Burke, "but not the state itself, nor any

[ocr errors]

part of it, that is, to be nothing at all in "the commonwealth, is a situation per"fectly intelligible: but to those who fill "that situation, not very pleasant, when it ❝is understood. It is a state of civil servi"tude by the force of the definition." (See Mr. Burke's celebrated Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, Beaconsfield, Jan. 3, 1792. The whole of this sensible performance 1 beg leave earnestly to recommend to the attentive perusal of every member of Parliament before the discussion of the Catholic claims). From this state of political slavery, the Catholics, however you may dislike the term emancipation, loudly demand a deliverance. The exclusion from the dignities of the state, and from offices of trust, is rendered a peculiar hardship, by the change which has taken place in the situation of the different governments of Europe. In former periods, when governments subsisted on domains belonging to them, an exclusion from offices could scarcely be accounted a hardship. But now a very general revolution has happened in the greatest monarchies of Europe. Governments are wholly supported by private contribution; a considerable portion of the industry of individuals is given to the state, and the subject receives an indemnification of the loss, by the returned profits of his labour through the channel of offices and employments. When the favours of the crown are distributed with an impartial hand, uni versal satisfaction must naturally prevail,

and an accurate balance is established be

[blocks in formation]

persons so proscribed ought to be indem"nified by the remission of a large part of "their taxes, by an immunity from the of "fices of public burden, and by an exemp "tion from being pressed into any military

[ocr errors]

or naval service." (Mr. Burke's Letter on the penal Laws against Irish Catholics, 1782.) If, Sir, amidst your numerous schemes of finance, you should undertake to provide for the exigencies of the state by the expedient of a lottery on a new plan; if according to the supposed scheme, you should oblige each individual to contribute a sum proportioned to his income, if you should then allow the chances of certain prizes not to all the contributors, but to those only who think with you in religion, or rather, who will swear with you to abhor transubstantiation, in that case, what opinion should we form of your notions of distributive justice? You probably would be deemed as iniquitous a minister as ever guided the councils of a Sovereign. But reflect a moment on the exclusion of Ca. tholics from places of emolument, and tell me how you can possibly be free from blame in sanctioning for a day such a barbarous and inhuman proscription. Here you have four millions of people, who contribute to the formation of this state lottery, but who are deprived of their just chances of a prize, by laws which operate solely against them. If national justice can be found in such a proceeding, I must profess myself totally unacquainted with its first elements.Place yourself, Sir, in the situation of a Roman Catholic, who professes certain doctrines confessedly innocuous, which he holds necessary to his eternal salvation. Were you impressed with such a conviction, you would deem it a cruel and intolerable hardship to be debarred from the offices and dignities of the state, and from a fair and honourable occasion of dis playing your talents in the service of your country. You would consider it a most ex traordinary proceeding that a conscientious attachment to the religion of the Edwards and the Henries, should be made a bar to, employments of a civil nature. You, pera haps, would hear with pain the exalted en comiums which are justly bestowed on our

Constitution, when you would be excluded from a participation in its blessings. Judge of the feelings of four millions of people by the dictates of your own mind, and then determine, whether after raising their hopes to the fairest prospects, you are not solemnly bound, under the present circumstances of the country, to espouse their cause and gratify their wishes.-Much, Sir, has been said and written in this country on the important subject of toleration. Many excellent lessons have been given by different writers, but they have not yet been reduced to practice by his Majesty's government. Whether you have formed a des ided opinion on the subject, I cannot pretend to determine, as I am unacquainted with all those secret motives which have given birth to so many liberal promises and professions, from you towards the Catholics of Ireland. Perhaps it may not be improper to state the doctrine of toleration, grounded on the most incontestible principles and supported by the highest authorities. With respect to that religious intolerance, which leads each church to hold the exclusive doctrine of salvation, it must be admitted to be perfectly proper and harmless. Truth is unquestionably one; and the divine Author of the Christian religion pronounces his fold to be one (John x. 16.) Now, whoever embraces any religion, must act from a conviction that he is about to enter this one fold, or one church established by Christ; he must, by the very nature of his own conduct, think himself in the right road, and those of different persuasions out of the true Church of Christ. Hence the Church of England and the Church of Rome, both hold the exclusive doctrine (See the last article of the Athanasian Creed in the Book of Common Prayer.) On this account the late attempt of a noble lord to draw a charge of disloyalty against Catholics from a speculative tenet, common both to them and Protestants, excited sentiments of surprise, compassion, and astonishment throughout the country. (See the most singular and extraordinary correspon dence ever submitted to public inspection, between Lord Redesdale and the Earl of Fingal, Reg. Vol. V. p. 215.)-Having thus stated the nature of religious intolerance, I believe you will agree with me in saying, that it must be confined to the speculative tenets, and the spiritual power claimed by cach particular church. All external violence, by which men are forced to enter into any sect or society, cannot but be displeasing to Him, who does not even save his creatures without their concurrence. The per

secution of the civil magistrate on the ground of religion is peculiarly deserving of animadversion. His duty, by the nature of his office, is confined to the impartial execution of equal laws, to the general care of all bis subjects with respect to civil concerns, to the security of their property, lives, and temporal welfare, and to the punishment of crimes which disturb the peace of society. To interfere in the religion of his subjects, by claiming the privilege of directing their belief, by propagating his own mode of worship in defiance of the inward persuasion of individuals, by inflicting for the same purpose the punishments of rapine, confisca tion, tortures, and death; even to resort to the more gentle mode of civil proscriptions, to exclusions from civil offices, which are perpetuated by the purse of individuals, all this is to jumble heaven and earth together, to confound things which are in their own nature distinct, and to claim a power which, unquestionably, he does no: possess. The civil magistrate, may indeed, inske a legal establishment by encouraging one mode of worship, by honouring and rewarding its ministers, by securing the immunities of his church from rapacity, even by enabling it to raise its head in the highest assemblies of the nation. But if, on the mere pretext of religion, without alleging any crime, that disturbs the peace of society, he proceeds to temporal disabilities and penalties, if he excludes his other subjects from civil offices and employments, he by that very act becomes not so much the protector of his own church, as the persecutor of the other modes of worship in his dominions. The Grand Signior might on the same grounds, be justified, in the sight of God and man, in confining his favours to the professors of the Koran, and in extending, to his other subjects, nothing but penalties of every description. But, Sir, every man can regulate the affairs of his own conscience try an unalienable right, wholly independent of the civil authority. This right was exercised by the first Christians, in defiance of the Majesty of the Roman Empire, and its tutelary deities; and the invincible constancy of those heroes has excited the admiration of all Christian nations It is truly an unalienable right." Nobody," says Locke, "nei"ther single persons, nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights, and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of re"ligion" (Locke's Letter on Toleration, p. 68, edit. Glasgow, 1757.)-Individua's can indeed, and often have been, punished by temporal penalties, for seditiously dia

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

turbing the religious establishment of their country. That becomes a civil crime, and is unquestionably punishable by the civil ma gistrate. But, to invade the temporal rights of the subject, on the ground of his religious persuasion, is to sow the seeds of discord and war, and to excite direct provocation to batred, to rapine, and to slaughter. It evidently tends to disturb the peace of mankind, by encouraging a well known fanatical maxim, that dominion is founded in grace, and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms. To make an application of these principles to the circumstances of our own country. You, as minister of a great nation, should shew all indulgence to the speculative tenets of different sects, however intolerant they may be in a religious point of view. For it is incontestably true, that articles of faith. or opinions which have no connexion with the concerns of the state, can never be subject to civil control. You are likewise pledged, by the situation which you hold, to support the religious establishment of your country, and to secure its rights and immunities. But when you are assured of the loyalty of those who dissent from the religion of the state, when you have not the smallest reason to imagine, that they will disturb the established mode of worship, whatever their own belief may be, you are bound, by all laws of heaven and earth, to extend to them the fullest benefits of civil toleration, and an equitable participation of the rights of British subjects. To adopt a contrary mode of conduct, to punish men solely for a conscientious adherence to religious opinions, resembles the tyrannical conduct of an arbitrary monarch, who should direct civil disabilities against an antiquated sect of philosophers, for following the systems of the Peripatetic or Cartesian schools, in opposition to the modern discoveries of Newton, of Kepler, and of Halley. But still, Sir, some persons may be alarmed at the progress of Catholic doctrines; they may affect much apprehension that the sectaries may be clamorous for indulgence, and under this gloomy state of mind, they will perhaps oppose every plan for the repeal or modifica tion of the Test Act. It is much to be questioned, whether ignorance, bigotry, or perhaps, the most selfish views be not concealed under the garb of zeal for the establishment. You have not to learn that the Catholic doctrine, that the harmless tenets of transubstantiation and invocation of saints d d not give birth to that celebrated act, 25 Car. 2 cap. 2 The real grounds are to be sought for in the bias of the court to a connexion with the Catholic powers, and the dreaded

-

succession of the Duke of Y. rk. It is stated to be an act to prevent the dangers arising from Popish recusants. "It was principally," says Eckard, " if not solely levelled at the "Roman Catholics in order to preclude "them from places of note and trust.” (Eckard's Hist. of England, p 893). The dangers whether real or imaginary, which this law was calculated to avert, are now completely removed in the judgment of all mankind, and the continuance of the act becomes at once unnecessary and oppressive. The sectaries are, indeed, included in the letter of the regulation, but it is full well known, that against them it has long ceased to operate.Many among the various descriptions of dissenters resort without hesitation to an occasional conformity, and those who are less pliant, are relieved by the annual bill of indemnity, which in fact, amoun s to a suspension of the law. But, Catholics consider compliance as a desertion of their faith. Thus, it appears, that they only are excluded from the benefits of the constitution, by the operation of a law, which continues, though the cause that gave it birth has long ceased to exist. While the dissenters fill our corporations, and enjoy places of trust and emolument, while the presbyterians of Scotland, a race of men, by habits and disposition, infinitely more averse to the Church of England, than Roman Catholics, are encouraged by every species of patronage, and fill the highest departments of the state, civil, naval, and military; the Catho lics are debarred from these advantages, considered as a wretched and degraded society of men, and treated as exiles in their own land. Is this proscriptive exclusion consistent with the spirit of the British constitution? Is it agreeable to the dictates of justice and policy? Is it necessary for the maintenance of the established Church? Suffer me to recur again to the authority of Mr. Burke on this subject. "I cannot conceive how " any thing worse can be said of the Protes"tant religion of the Church of England, "than this, that wherever it is judged pro per to give it a legal establishment, it be

66

66

comes necessary to deprive the body of "the people if they adhere to their old opi "nions, of their "liberties and all their tree

customs," and to reduce them to a state "of civil servitude." (See Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe.)-1 perhaps, may be told, that the injury done to the Catholics is not so considerable, as to merit the odious name of civil exclusion; and that the Catholics of Ireland were relieved by an impor» tant act of the 33 Geo. III. c. 21. No man, Sir, can think more bighly than I dʊ of that

paternal goodness, in which this substantial relief is said to have originated; and every sentiment of attachment, every tribute of admiration and applause is due from grateful subjects to a beneficent Sovereign. But do you imagine that you can stop here, consistently either with policy or justice? Do you suppose, that after recognising the principle, that Catholics may safely be admitted to places of trust, you can continue to distribute the first dignities of the state among a few hundred thousand individuais, and that the whole mass of Catholic population is to remain satisfied with the lowest and least la. crative employments? No, Sir, these are not your sentiments; you have long promised more; you stand pledged to carry into effect the claims of the Catholics. I will not, therefore, insult your understanding, by pointing out the fatal consequences of suffering so large a part of the community to remain in its present state of political degrasiation. I must, however, remind you before I quit this part of my subject, that the relief alluded to is confined solely to the Catholics of Ireland. Those in Great Britain are still debarred from the birth rights of Englishmen. Even the elective franchise is but tolerated by favour. And yet, Sir, to my certain knowledge, a more deserving class of men, persons of more animated loyalty to their beloved Sovereign, and of more ardent attachment to the constitution of their country, are not to be found in the whole com pass of his Majesty's dominions.---There is some reason to imagine, Sir, that a portion of the old leaven, of the antiquated and bigotted hatred towards Catholics, still remains in the country. When the great question of their claims shall be made a subject of discussion, it is not improbable, that some of the juvenile and unfledged statesmen of the present period, some of the sanctified politicians will be alarmed for the safety of the Church, will feel the workings of the old spirit, will renew the exploded and ridicu lous charges of superstitions fooleries, idolatry, impiety, and atheism, and will pour forth against the Catholic religion a torrent of the most virulent and offensive abuse, which a foul imagination, assisted by volubility of tongue, can display. Such a scene will remind us of the description which the poet gives of the eruption of Mount Etna: "Interdum scopulos, avulsaque viscera 66 montis

"Erigit eructans, liquefactaque saxa sub.

ཀང་་ auras

"Cum gemitu glomerat, fundoque exæs

"tuat imo."

Virgil Eneid, lib 3, v. 575, et seq.

But, Sir, peace to all such! I am not addressing myself to the herd of mankind, to the unthinking or the uninformed vulgar, how ever they may be accidentally distinguished by rank or by fortune. I am speaking to a man of superior sense, and superior attaine ments; a man above the workings of bigotry, and the rage of tanaticism. The que tion, af er what has been said, lies in a very narrow co-upass. Four millions of subjects, deprived of the benefits of the constitution, ardently look for the restoration of those

liberties and free customs" which are se. cored to Britons by the Great Charter, and which are unquestionably their birth right, unless they forfeit it by disloyal conduct, or the admission of principles hostile to the safety of the state. Now, Sir, I appeal to yo, whether in the conduct and principles of the Roman Catholics any thing of this de*cription can be found. You know full well, that their loyalty has frequently been recog nised by the legislature, and that it is placed beyond a doubt by the evidence of facts. You are fully convinced that their religious principles are perfectly innocuous, and com, patible with the tranquillity of any govern ment.Suffer me, Sir, to bring to your recollection an event, which took place about sixteen years ago. The committee of English Catholics waited on you, to state their grievances, from which they begged to be relieved; and, before any farther proceeding you requested to be furnished with authentic evidence of the opinions of the Catholic Clergy, and the Catholic Universities abroad, with respect to the existence and extent of the Pope's dispensing power. Three questions were accordingly framed and sent to the Universities of Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca, and Valladolid, and at swers were requested. The questions were, 1st. Whether the pope, cardinals, or any body of men possessed any civil authority whatever in this realm. 2dly. Whether the pope or any set of mea could dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance. 3dly. Whether it was a princip e of the Catholic Church, that no faith was to be kept with heretics. By all these Univer sities the most precise and satisfactory answers were given; all foreign jurisdiction of a civil nature within this realm was peremp torily denied to exist in the pope, cardinals, or any other body of men; the power of dispensing with the oath of allegiance was equally rejected, and the principle that no faith was to be kept with heretics was exploded with horror, as totally foreign to Ctholic doctrine. Such was the unanimo consent of these Universities. But the Doce

their an

tors of Louvain, prefaced prefaced their swer with a remarkable preamble. They express their readiness to give their opinion, but they are "struck with asto"nishment that such questions should, at "the end of the 18th century, be proposed "to a learned body by the inhabitants of a "kingdom, that glories in the talents and "discernment of its natives." (See all these pieces apud Plowden Hist. Rev. tom. 2, p. 2, Append. p. 199-204.)-You remained, Sir, perfectly satisfied with these answers: for you supported the, bill, which afterwards passed in favour of the English Catholics. But the astonishment of the Flemish Doctors, of men generally undervalued as deficient in liberality of sentiment, was perfectly natural. What, Sir, could have induced you to expose yourself and your country to ridicule, by proposing such questions to a learned body, in an enlightened age? Had you taken a view of the map of Europe, and examined the prevalence of the Catholic religion in the different states, you might have satisfied yourself, the legislature, and the country, with respect to the innocent tendency of Catholic doctrines. The population of Europe amounts to more than one hundred and fifty millions of inhabitants, and of this number, nearly two-thirds, or one hundred million, are Roman Catholics. They are scattered over immense tracts of country in the north, middle, and south of Europe; they exist under every species of government, arbitrary, monarchical, mixed, and republican; they are blended with the Protestants of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, and the Greeks in Russia; they all acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Pope, but in no place are their tenets considered as hostile to the civil government. This simple view might have dissipated all your fears, and convinced you, that no danger can possibly be apprehended from admitting Roman Catholics to the fullest enjoyment of the privileges of Britons. I hope, that when the question comes to be considered, you will calm the rage of some of your bigotted friends, by giving them th view of the subject; and that you will prevent them from disgracing themselves, the legislature, ni the country, by exposing their ignorance and their prejudices in the face of Europe.-After this clear and succinct exposure of the state of the question, let me ask, Sir, what can, at this period of the world, retard the admission of the Romn Catholics to the fullest benefits of the Constitution? Will you resort to the usual pretext of ministerial delay, that it is not the is to propose such a measure? Is it not

time, Sir, to perform an act of substantial justice, which it is disgraceful to the British government to have so long delayed? When will you cease to act the part of a procrastinating debtor, who refuses to satisfy the just demands which are made on him, till he is reduced to the most perplexing difficulties? Is it not time to carry into effect those just and salutary principles of toleration, which are known and practised almost in every country in Europe, except Great Britain? Is it not time to redeem the pledges which you have given to the Catholics of Ireland, and to rescue from disgrace the honour of the British name? Much obloquy has been injuriously thrown upon Catholics, for not keeping faith with heretics. But see, Sir, that your conduct do not afford a just ground of reproach, if it should appear, that a Protestant statesman can induce himself not to keep faith with Catholics. Let me tell you, Sir, that it is time to conciliate the affections of the Catholics of Ireland, and unite the best energies of the empire against the common enemy; and that no time is to be lost in effecting this desirable purpose. If you wish to raise an impenetrable barrier against the continued encroachments, the restless ambition of a military chieftain, if you hope completely to disappoint his views of conquest, your great resources must be sought for in the spirit and unanimity of the people. Let once an enthusiatic ardour de raised in the breast of every subject of his Majesty, by interesting all equally in the defence of the laws, liberties and constitution, and we may set at defiance the menaces of an insulting foe, reduce him to fair and honourable terms of peace, confirm our independence, and still stand in the proud and commanding attitude, which we have long exhibited to the nations of Europe.—THE BRITISH OBSERVER. -Jan. 6th, 1805.

!

PUBLIC PAPERS. WAR WITH SPAIN.Order issued by the Court of Madrid, dated 27th Novemb. 1804. The conduct which the English have observed since the event of the 5th of Oct. is almost insufferable. They attack our ships of war in whatsoever situation they may appear, and detain our commercial vessels, obliging them afterwards to return to the ports from whence they came, so that the object of their voyage is wholly frustrated. These hostile proceedings have constrained his Majesty to abandon the pacific sentiments which he has considered heretofore most conducive to the happiness of his be loved subjects; and he is therefore driven to the necessity of procuring satisfaction for

« PreviousContinue »