this subject particularly their study. On the other hand, if the question were the toleration of religious opinions, I must think, my Lords, that my disposition to indulgence is not less comprehensive than that of the Noble Baron, or any other man wishing the freedom of either religious or political opinion. As to this feeling of toleration, something it may, however, be requisite to remark in order to justify myself in the vote I shall give this night, and with reference to the deductions which I shall feel it incumbent on me to infer from the arguments which I shall submit to your Lordships. As to the question of toleration, I have as strong a feeling as any Noble Lord of the importance of tolerating liberal notions in religion; and I remember the question that has been started, tending to decide whether infidelity, or superstition and fanaticism, were less consistent with the safety of a nation and commonwealth. Without being over-friendly to toleration, I can safely observe, that from the example of the history of the world, I am of opinion, that no greater bane to human society can arise than infidelity. We have had an example of this in our own times. The question, indeed, was reserved for these times; for in the centre of Europe an atheistical republic has been reared up, but fortunately, vanished with the season that gave it birth. That system, however, cannot have failed to make a great and lasting impression on the minds of men. It left on the mind a persuasion, that the violence of fanaticism, in the worst ages of the world, never equalled the intolerance, intemperance, and wickedness of the French Revolutionists. All the deviations of other countries, and of sects in religion, from the rules and precepts of moderation and humanity, were trivial, compared to the atrocity of the first revolutionists of France. The severities of religious bodies were clemency compared to the conduct of the atheistical tolerants of republican France. Recollecting what occured in that country in the period of the world to which I al F 1 I allude, I will say that those who have any religion, be it what it may, are in a better situation than if they had none. The Catholics are not the class of Christians in whom I feel the most confidence, nay, they are those in whom I feel the least, and for whom, as a sect, I have the least respect. Having stated this, I have no difficulty in saying, that the Roman Catholics of this country, I believe as loyal, as honest, and as meritorious as any men; yet, whatever tenets they may profess, I know their great submission is not real. Still the Catholics may be and are as virtuous, loyal, and honest as men can be, in some respects, though only so in a restricted sense. " With this view of the subject, I come to the principles of the Law and Constitution, those principles which have been considered the best support of the Throne in Church and State; the bulwarks of our institutions, and guarantee of safety to our country, which I hope Noble Lords will not abandon without stronger reasons than those urged by the Noble Baron. "Yet whilst I submit that our laws are excellent and ought to be supported, I do not mean to say that laws, however wise, are infallible, or ought to be considered eternal. All laws are liable to revision, and, if circumstances demand, that it may be even wise to abrogate great and important laws. On the other hand, I do say, that there are laws which are the land-marks of our Constitution, the compact between the governors and the governed; and though the modification of these, on a case made out, might be expedient, yet such laws ought not to be changed without the greatest necessity. "Let us look at the present question as bearing upon, or affected by, our laws. The great and first principle of the law, by the Act of Settlement, is, that the King of this country is a Protestant, and holds communion with the Church of England, as by law established. Our ancestors felt this, and departed no farther than necessity obliged them, from the spirit of of the law and Constitution. When they did, how ever, interfere with the Constitution, they looked at all its other parts, and put it to themselves, whether, if a prince came of a different religion from that established by the laws, they ought not to resist the innovation. They were aware of the inconvenience, and great it was, of breaking in on the line of succession, yet that inconvenience they did incur, thinking that admitting a prince of a religion differing from the established religion, would be a greater evil. The law which settles the succession to the crown, is not founded on temporary views of convenience, or idle speculation, but on experience, and well weighed and fully matured principle. Those who framed this law, came to the conclusion, that the Prince must be of the established religion of the State, otherwise that he would forfeit the crown. : " In establishing this principle another grows out of it, that if it be necessary by law that the Prince should be a Protestant, it is likewise undeniably so that his chief Counsellors, most intimate advisers, and those the highest in his confidence, should likewise be of the established Protestant religion. Surely no one will contend that the Counsellors of the Sovereign should not be of the same religion with the Sovereign. I grant that even of this principle there may be some modification; yet alawful Crown pre-supposes a lawful Constitution of government. The Monarchical Establishment at the Revolution, was founded on the very principle for which I now contend: and I cannot conceive so absurd, so extravagant a proposition as that we are to support one and break in on another line of the succession, and are to have a Catholic Chancellor, Catholic Judges, and the whole Civil Administration in the hands of Catholics. Arguing, ab initio, you might say, indeed, that, in the case of the Crown, you would remit the law; but how unaccountable to alledge that the Crown shall be Protestant, and yet its advisers need not. 1 "The respect for the Crown, however, has been marked in former times. The Crown was treated as the subject is now attempted to be treated. In point of fact, it was what was done in the time of Charles II. for then they began against Presbyterians, Catholics, and Dissenters of all descriptions; but during the whole time no Act was passed as to the Crown. The subject was to be of the Established Religion; the Crown was not. When the Duke of York became a Catholic, and was coming to the Crown, it was said that the circunstance of his avowal of Catholicism was, as to the law of succession, ex post facto, but he was not excluded from the throne. "Now, in point of reasoning, and in point of fact, if the limitation of the Crown was necessary, it was more so to restrict the Counsellors of the Crown. "As to political power, your Lordships will, however, look to it with jealousy, and will not place it in unworthy hands; in hands in which it can be abused with the view of political supremacy. Those who dispense the favours of the Crown, should be of the religion of the Crown. The inference from the argument of the Noble Baron is, however, that he would dispense with tests altogether. "Upon the practical effects of the motion, it is necessary to state to your Lordships in what Disssenters and Catholics differ, and to shew that our English Dissenters differ more from the Church than the Catholics. There are many tenets in which Catholics seem to come nearer the Church than Dissenters; yet in one most essential point the Catholic is more at variance with the Church, and that is in regard to internal government. The Dissenter admits the right of the Church to internal government, but the Catho lic contends for external government, and the supremacy of the Church of Rome. This foreign jurisdic tion is stated to be merely ecclesiastical; but no one who reflects on the thing will fail to consider it as political, Will Noble Lords consider that great part part of the lands of another part of the empire is in the hands of the Catholics, and will not that give them political power? Now the Catholics, honestly, I will suppose, think the Church of England heretical and idolatrous. And if they, by being admitted to the first offices in the State, gain power, who will assure himself that they will not inculcate the doctrine, that since they are not of the Church, they ought not to be called upon to contribute to the maintenance of the Church? If the Catholics he honest men, they must prefer their own tenets to any other; and because of that they ought to be received with jealousy. 66 But it is said, that with a Protestant King nothing can happen to give the Catholics power. Now, on their own principles, this must be sufficient to induce them not to be zealous, or at all desirous, to compass the ends of their present Petition: for, most assuredly they wish for power, without which rank in the State would be idle and nugatory. If, however, with a Protestant Prince, they could gain no ascendancy, or acquire no power, compliance with their Petition would be worth nothing to the Petitioners. If, on the other hand, you think there will be no danger in abrogating the laws, do it openly. The argument of the Noble Baron applies to trusting employments to Catholics, and qualifying them to sit in Parliament, I will not go deeply into this question; I think that when the elective franchise was granted them, enough was done; but that has not satisfied, and we are called upon to expose our security, by granting what I do believe will end in ruin. "As to the consideration of the question, on the ground of time, I wholly differ in opinion from the Noble Baron; and contend that the most dangerous time we could choose is that when the power ruling in France is closely connected as it is with the Pope of Rome. The ground of this opinion was seen in the rebellion of 1798. But if you grant the Catho 1 |