too soon or too late to hearken to their Petitions. The periods of peace or war are equally unpropitious to their hopes Some Noble Lords emphatically resist this Petition because it is brought forward at this time; who tell us, in the same breath, that they think it proper at no time, and will resist it at any time. But, my Lords, I own I am utterly at a loss for arguments to meet such contradictory objections as these. But then comes the grand objection of all: -Not satisfied with the loyal conduct and peaceful demeanour of the Catholic body in Ireland, you still question their sincerity. You propose to them test after test, and oath after oath, to prove their loyalty and attachment to the State; and after they have taken those tests, and given the most solemn assurances you could demand, it is then said, they are not to be believed upon their oaths, as it is a fundamental article of their religion, that no faith is to be kept with Heretics; and that the Pope may absolve them from allegiance to a Protestant King. Now, my Lords, if this were really the case, how can we account for the reluctance of the Catholics to take the only oath that stands between them and all they wish? Is it fair to admit such a charge against them from their enemies, which they have repeatedly, and in the most solemn manner disavowed and abjured? But, my Lords, I will refer to better authority than the assertions of their enemies; namely, to the authority of the most eminent Catholic Universities in Europe, for their opinions upon those points, obtained at the special instance of a Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of his Majesty's councils in the year 1789. I speak of the Universities of the Sorbonne, Louvain, Doway, Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca; all of whom solemnly deny such doctrines, and complain of nothing more bitterly than the calumnies of their opponents upon this head. My Lords, the question propounded for the answers of those several Universities, were three, which I shall read to your Lordships: QUERIES. "Has the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individuals of the Church of Rome, any civil or political authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? "Can the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individuals of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? "Is there any principle in the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with Heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions of a public or private nature? ર My Lords, these several queries have been answered by those several Universities at considerable length, and decidedly in the negative. The Faculty of Divinity at Louvain answer, "that they are struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body, by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives" The first and second queries they answer unanimously in the negative; and they do not feel it incumbent on them to enter upon the proofs of the opinions which they hold, supported by the Holy Scriptures and the most eminent writers of their religion, ancient and modern, against the doctrines of Bellarmine, Du Perron, and many others, which they deeply lament, were favourably heard by the court of Rome in the dark ages, and even found its way into the councils of Kings, to the production of infinite detriment to the Church and Republic of Christianity, and the deluging deluging of Europe with blood; they totally and utterly deny that any such power whatever exists in the Catholic Church, or its members, individually or collectively, Pope, Cardinal, Council, or General Assembly, to deprive any sovereign power of its temporal right, possession, government, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, or subject it to any restraints or modifications; and that this opinion they hold, as founded in the doctrine of truth, of the Apostles, and of the Church, delivered down from the Fathers and Prelates; and though defaced and obscured by the filth heaped upon it in the middle ages, yet not obliterated. They state that this opinion is not peculiar to themselves, but that there is no society or learned body, nor any one learned man in the whole Catholic world, who is not ready to subscribe to it with both hands: and with respect to the third point, the faculty, after professing equal astonishment that such a question should be propounded, do most positively and unequivocally answer, That there is not, and that there never has been, amongst the Catholics, or in the doctrines of the Church of Rome, any law, principle, or tenet which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith with Heretics, or others of a different persuasion from themselves in matters of religion, either in public or private concerns; and they quote the authority of an illustrious member of their faculty two centuries ago, that such a doctrine is most impious and pestilential, ascribed to the Catholics by those men who, rather than peace should be made with them, wished to throw every thing into confusion, that thus no harmony, no articles of peace, of equity, or honesty might be received by persons differing from them in religious matters. To the same questions the answers of all the other five Universities I have named, are, in effect, precisely the same; all solemnly and utterly denying and abjuring such abominable tenets. Considering, therefore, the authority of those Universities, as to what what are or are not the tenets and doctrines of their own religion, infinitely better than that of those who ignorantly assert the contrary, unsupported by any authentic proof, I own I cannot feel with those who are for rejecting the claims of the Catholics to those eligibilities, which it is even alleged can gain them nothing. In this advanced stage of the Christian Religion and of social civilization, I hold it to be highly essential to the happiness, the security, and the prosperity of this United Empire, to do away all differences between his Majesty's subjects, founded on distinctions in religion; and, notwithstanding what has fallen from the Right Reverend Prelate who spoke last, and to whose authority I certainly feel disposed to pay every respect, yet I cannot feel with him that there is any danger to the Protestant Establishment from the vote I shall this night give, in favour of the motion for going into the Committee. The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to discuss the subject, with temperance and moderation. The Noble Lord who introduced the subject, had said it was one highly fit to be entertained. If it was so fit to be entertained upon constitutional principles, he sincerely prayed God that it might be entertained; but if its tendency, as had been ably argued, was to subvert those blessings under that Constitution, which not only the Protestants of this country, but every other class of his Majesty's subjects in the country enjoy, both civil and religious, he hoped it would not be entertained. To say the measure never shall pass, would be a language not fit for any man to use who was fit to have a seat in that House. But at present, and in his view of the subject, it was a question inconsistent with the principles of that Constitution which had been introduced into this country upon Protestant principles; and, therefore, feeling as he did, that it is a ques-, tion opposed to what he conceived to be the true principles of that Constitution, and the Law as it stands, stands, he should feel that he was not doing his duty if he did not oppose it; and in so doing, he conceived himself acting consistently with that zeal and sense of duty which he hoped would actuate the majority of their Lordships, to transmit to our posterity that Constitution in as much purity as we had received it from our ancestors. It had been said that the Petition was couched in respectful lan guage. He would admit it was. But the question was not, Whether the language of the Petition was respectful to the House? but, Whether it was wise, just, or expedient to comply with the prayer of that Petition? It was said also, that the Petition was in behalf of four millions of his Majesty's Catholic subjects; but it was not the numbers who signed a Petition, but the object of the Petition itself, and the reasonableness and justice of complying with. that object, that should rule the consideration of the House. The Noble Lord then, at very considerable length, and with his wonted ability, went over the whole ground of principle upon which the subject had been already debated, and contended that every thing which religious toleration demanded, had been already conceded to the Catholics; and that they had now no political grievance whatever to complain of, that do not equally affect most other descriptions of his Majesty's Protestant subjects. The Constitution demands oaths, tests, and qualifi cations from those who are to be entrusted with parliamentary representation or official power our liberties were sustained by a system of checks. The elective franchise was limited; the Representative must prove the qualification of him required; the Dissenter must conform to the oaths presented for the Protestant. The eldest sons of the Peers of Scotland could not be returned as Representatives in Parliament for that part of the kingdom; and, in short, no prohibition now remained upon Roman Catholics that did not attach equally upon many other descriptions of his Majesty's Protestant subjects. |