important points? Supposing two distinct questions, standing on different grounds; surely no one will say, that we ought not to go into a Committee to see whether we cannot give either, because we cannot give both. There are two very different points in this question Gentlemen speak as if they thought none but members of the Church of England were capable of sitting in Parliament. But do not Dissenters sit in this House? However, in point of doctrine, the Church of England differs from the Catholics, yet it does not differ more than from the Dissenters. With regard to the maintenance and establishment of the Church of England, there cannot be more difference between the Catholics, than there is between the Dissenters and the Protestants. We have forty-five Members in this House, who are of a professed Establishment different from our own, and they are not members of the most tolerant sect. It is true, that from the bias of their education, from their intellectual attainments, from the improvement of their minds, and from their enlightened understanding, they are above narrow religious prejudices; yet, from the profession of their Faith, they are not more liberal or tolerant than the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics are charged with saying, There is no salvation for Heretics; and the Scots Kirk says, It is blasphemy to assert that any can be saved who are not of their faith. Out of these forty-five Members, not more than three or four could be persuaded to decide with us in favour of the repeal of the Test Act. It is said, How can we employ persons in office who are not of the Established Religion? In Ireland they are acceptable, because there is no Test Act. If it is said that we want to put the Catholics in a better situation than the Dissenters, let it be recollected that we are talking of Ireland. But is it supposed that the Test Act is the means of assuring that every man shall be a member of the Church of England? Do we not know, that in the reign of Queen Anne, Bills of occasional conformity were passed; and that in the reign of George I. many of the Dissenters only took the sacrament to show their disposition in favour of the Established Church, however they might not agree as to parts of the Liturgy? Will any body say that taking the sacrament proves a man to be a sup porter of the Church of England? May not a Dis senter take the sacrament, and yet consider the Lis turgy of the Church of England as the most con+ summate bigotry? This leads me to another part or the subject, which was stated by a Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir William Scott), whom, I flatter my self, I may call my friend. The principal flower or his eloquence consisted in the repetition of the word «must. " He seemed to think, that the fundamental laws of the Church of England must be repealed by granting the prayer of the Catholics. The exclusion of the Catholics from seats in Parliament, and the existence of the Test Acts, are the props, according to the Learned Gentleman (Sir William Scott), which support the Church of Eng. land. What then was the state of the Church of England in the reigns of Elizabeth, of James the First, and Charles the First? Were these Princes not the heads of the Church as effectually as his present Majesty? Nay, would it not be deemed the grossest abomination to doubt, even, that Charles the First fell a martyr to the Church of England? Yet, throughout the reigns of these Princes, Roman Catholics sat in Parliament, and the Test Act had no existence. Granting the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England to be not repugnant to the free principles of the Constitution, as established in the reign of King William; yet the Homilies which follow are by many stated to be an absolute condemnation of the very thing which took place at the time of the Revolution. Nay, did not Sacheverel openly attack, and, upon the authority of these Homilies, stigmatize that great proceeding as impious, and utterly destructive of the Church of England? Now, with regard to those learned places which form a repository a repository for the essential doctrines of religion, I mean the Universities, in one of which (the University of Oxford) I had the honour to receive part of my early education, if I was to produce the de cree of that University of 1683, against limited Government, describing it as one of those things which lead to atheism, what would be said of it? Some of the best of men have come from that University. None more so than the Learned Gentleman; but I do beg, to use a plain homely phrase, that they will not throw stones whose eyes are made of glass do not advise the High Church party to look so narrowly into the history of the Catholics, and into all the violence of their decrees, in order to disqualify them from being amalgamated and reconciled with the Constitution of this Country. It has been said by a Learned Gentleman, that the Roman Catholics wish to overturn the Established Religion of the Country. To this I answer, that there are good subjects of all sects and persuasions, in all countries, who, dissenting from the Established Religion, yet pay obedience to the opinion of the majority. I am surprised it should have been said by an Hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General), that if he was a Catholic in a country where the Protestant Church was established, and he had the power, he would exercise it to weaken the Established Religious Government. I have too good an opinion to think so of him. If every man was to conceive himself at liberty, because he differed from the Established Religion of a country, to attempt to overturn it, the general tendency of such a principle. would be to destroy all peace in the world. I do not believe any good Catholic would so act-I am sure no good subject, who loves his country, ought The question is this-Here are persons who apply to you, not for exclusive privileges, but simply to be placed on a footing with all others of His Majesty's subjects. It is a claim of justice. If you refuse it, the burthen of proof lies on you, so to act. to to show the inconvenience or danger of granting their claim. Nothing of the sort has been proved, you have argued it only by referring to old times,' differing from the present. The question comes to this-Whether, in the state in which we are, it can be the conduct of a wise and prudent Government to separate from itself so large a proportion of the population of the country as the people of Ireland? No Statesman, no man who can judge of the affairs of the world, will think so. I should hope that those who wish well to the country will support my motion. If it should, however, unfortunately fail, we shall all have done our duty in arguing the question, with a view to induce those to adopt our opinion, who are at present under a fatal delusion with regard to this momentous subject. I should notice one thing it is, that you have raised this question, and not the Petition. The Petition has nothing of the seeds of turbulence in it-You will, I trust, draw the hopes of Ireland to this country-make the people of Ireland look to us as their best reliance, and prevent their recurring to any criminal measures. I should now have done, but for the observation of an Hon. Baronet. He says, Why should you give all this to the Catholics of Ireland, and not grant the same to the Catholics of England? In the first place, the Catholics of England have not petitioned. I have no doubt as to the propriety of putting the Catholics of England on the same footing. I have no doubt they would finally obtain the same privi leges. Those who know the Catholics of England, who know the character of the lower ranks of the people, are sensible how little danger would result from, the Catholic Peers sitting in the House of Lords, or Catholic Members in the House of Commons. Every man must perceive that it would be beneficial to the country, particularly at a time when every man is called upon to show his zeal in the service, and in the general cause of the Empire. I have only to add, in answer to an Hon. Gentleman oppo site, that I was in Ireland a great while ago; but it to me that the C who visited try was calculated to it to its general laws. The gentlemen of Ireland At half past four in the morning the question was put on Mr. Fox's original motion; when the House divided, Ayes Majority THE END.. J24 336 R. Taylor and Co. Printers, 38, Shoe-Lane, Fleet-Street. 86 |