last man to give them his support; but thinking, as he did, that all those who shared in the burthens of the country ought to participate in the blessings of the constitution, he felt it to be as wise in policy as it was just and sound in principle, to remove the disabilities under which so many laboured on account of their religious belief. of the constitutional propriety of the clergy coming forward in a body against a general right. The clergy certainly could not have a stronger interest in questions of this kind than any other class of his majesty's subjects individually, but their appearance in a body was formidable, and had an unconstitutional tendency. They looked like a separate and distinct class coming forward to give an influence. The subject was one that was connected with political rights and liberties, and the clergy ought not to come in their collective capacity to assume a political influence. Mr. Courtenay did not mean- to deny the respectability of the individuals who signed the petition from Exeter, but he should observe, that the names affixed to a petition from the same place in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, which he Mr. Peel said, it was quite impossible should presently present, were not less re- for him to hear such doctrine, without spectable. He fully agreed with the lat-entering his most solemn protest against ter petitioners, that it was unjust and im-it. Was it possible for any man in that politic to deprive any body of men of House to support the doctrine of the hon. their civil rights in consequence of their member, that it was unconstitutional for religious opinions. Instead of thinking the clergy to approach that House as pethat any danger would arise to the church titioners? Where did the hon. member or state from the repeal of the laws affect- learn this doctrine? In what books had ing the Roman Catholics, he thought it he read it? He was surprised to hear would add considerably to the strength of such sentiments from that side of the the country. For those of his constitu- House (though he did not mean to asents who thought otherwise he had a highsume that any one but the hon. member respect; but he differed from them very held such opinions), which on every occamuch. There was, in fact, a great differ- sion professed to wish for the utmost freeence of opinion on the subject in every dom of discussion. How could any man part of the country, and this was a reason say that the clergy had not a right to pewhy every member should come to the tition that House? What! was it not discussion of the question with an unbiass- enough that they were excluded from a ed mind, and unfettered judgment. seat in it? Were they now to be excluded from approaching it with petitions couch Mr. Houblon presented a petition from the archdeacon, clergy, and laity of Col-ed in the most respectful terms? From chester, against any farther concessions to the Roman Catholics. Mr. Western said, that he differed very widely from those of his constituents who had signed the petitions against the claims of the Roman Catholics. This he regretted, as he respected them highly; but he had the satisfaction to think, that he agreed with some of the most enlightened statesmen that ever graced this country. He would not yield to any man in attachment to the constitution; he hated what was once known under the name of popery as much as any man; he regretted that such an ascendancy should have been gained over a great portion of Europe as once existed; but with these feelings strong in his mind, he could not subscribe to the principle which would visit upon the children the sins o their ancestors. Mr. Cartwright presented a petition from the dean and chapter of Peterborough against the claims of the Catholics. Mr. Western rose to express his doubt Did the warmest friends of the Roman Catho- Mr. Methuen was extremely happy to have heard from the right hon. gentleman sentiments so perfectly in accordance with his own, but which had borrowed an additional charm from the animated language in which those sentiments had been clothed. He could not sufficiently mark his dissatisfaction with, or rather abhorrence of, the doctrines laid down by the hon. member for Essex. Nothing could be more unconstitutional, as well as illiberal; for if there was one body whose representations should be entitled to more respect than another, that distinctive fayour was certainly due to the tried worth and highly-respectable character of the established clergy. Mr. Western contended, that he had been completely misunderstood, if not misrepresented. He did not mean that their petitions should be excluded from that House; his objection went to their addressing the House upon a subject of this delicacy in their corporate capacity. Would it be judicious to encourage applications respecting grievances from various classes of men in their corporate capacity? For instance, would it be for the interest of the independence of that House, that there should be presented a petition from the army as a body, upon the subject of its grievances? Mr. Plunkett said, there was an evident misapprehension existing. The clergy had, he said, petitioned against the claims, under the impression that the interests of the Protestant church were in danger; they considered that a question of religion, which he regarded as one of great civil policy, and certainly they had a right to petition in a collective, as well as in an individual capacity; but it perhaps would have been advisable to have abstained from taking so active a part as they had taken upon the occasion. Lord Milton said, he should certainly not coincide with the observations of his hon. friend, the member for Essex, if he thought they were directed against the reception of petitions from clergymen as individuals; although he had a doubt, whether or not their petitions, as a body, ought to be received. Although the House might receive a petition from an individual officer, if they were to allow a petition to be presented to them by the 1st regiment of Guards, they might as well abdicate their functions at once. The petitioners called themselves members of the church. The whole community were just as much members of the church. The petitioners were, in fact, the servants of the church. The several petitions were ordered to lie on the table. Sir George Hill said, he had a petition to present against the claims of the Roman Catholics, which did not yield in respectability to any that had been brought before parliament on that subject. It was from as independent a body of constituents as any that returned a member to that House. It was from the freemen, citizens, and inhabitants of the city and liberties of Londonderry. It was subscribed by the mayor, the sheriffs, the bishop and the dean, as well as by the clergy of the Established and Presbyterian churches, by all the principal merchants and resident gentry, and very numerously by the middle ranks of society. In short, it possessed every quality to give it merit and favour with the House. Its language was conciliatory, but in firm opposition to any alteration which could in any degree endanger the Protestantism of the throne, of the parliament, or of our religion. These were the sentiments of his constituents, and with them he entirely concurred; but they were not only the sentiments of the citizens of Derry, but of the Protestants of the North of Ireland, with which he had as good reason to be acquainted as any member. He was convinced, at the same time, that this and similar petitions had been thought peculiarly necessary, and had been voted and forwarded in consequence of the unauthorised declaration of some persons in Dublin, who being advocates of the Roman Catholics, had presumed to arrogate and announce a support of those claims by Protestants, which was not sanctioned. Such boasts, together with the taunts of the Roman Catholic press, had produced this and other petitions of the same tendency. Many other petitions on the same subject were presented, and ordered to lie on the table. ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.] Mr. Gratton presented eight Roman Catholic and five Protestant petitions, in favour of the Roman Catholic claims; after which, he rose and said: I beg leave, Sir, in presenting these petitions, to express my most ardent hope, that they may ultimately succeed; and that, in their success, they will give strength to the Protestant church, to the act of Settlement, and to the Protestant succession to the crown; and that they will form an identification with the people, so as to preserve tranquillity at home, and security and respectability abroad; while the two religions, under the roof of one and the same empire, may exercise their respective privileges with the same God, the same Gospel, and the same Re *From the original edition, printed for J. Ridgeway, Piccadilly, deemer; with different sacraments, but the same results; and in their different notes, with all the variety of nature, but with its concord and harmony, offer up their prayers to their common Redeemer. council of Lateran, the revival of the Jesuits, the restoration of the Inquisition, Gandolphy's pamphlet, his reception by the pope, and the politeness of the pope's chamberlain ;-the judge who should suffer such evidence to go to a jury, would be impeached, and the jury who found on such evidence would be attainted. Suppose the counsel on the side of the defence should tender in evidence, the diverse oaths which the Protestants had prescribed, and which the Roman Catholics had taken; the answers of the six universities against the imputed slander, the list of the killed and wounded, the battles won with Catholic blood; and in answer to the objection arising from the appointment of a Roman Catholic prelate by the pope, he should say, that this was the only part of the question which by any pretence came within your jurisdiction, the pope's own letters, containing an offer of the veto; and that you, in refusing that offer, rejected the security of the church, when it came accompanied with the liberty of the people; such a tender by the counsel, the judge would observe to be unnecessary, inasmuch as the other side had made out no case. It is submitted, that the Roman Catholic combination of Europe has ceased, that the race of the Pretender is extinct, that the dangerous power of the Pope is no more, and that the imputed attach ments are not only gone, but the objects to which there could be any attachment are annihilated. The Roman Catholics claim a common law right of eligibility, subject certainly to the control of parliament; they formerly sat in parliament and held offices, as you now sit in parliament, by virtue of that right; should you repeal the disabling statutes, you do not give, you only restore; should you please to continue the penal statutes, it is a sentence, where you are to prove their debut that the objection was answered by linquency, before you can call upon them to establish their innocence. There is no doubt that parliament has a right to disqualify; the safety of parliament depends on it; you have done so in the best of times; you have disqualified placemen and pensioners of certain descriptions; you have disqualified revenue officers, and you have ascertained the qualification of members of parliament, with a view to secure its independency; but there is one privilege which you cannot affect; you cannot disqualify on account of religion; the subject worships his God in defiance of his fellow-creature; it is the prerogative of God, as well as the privilege of the subject. The king who would interfere, puts himself in the place of his Maker, and attempts to jostle the Almighty from his throne; he has no credentials from God, and he can have none from man; all the kings of the earth, and all their artillery, horse and foot, and dragoons, can not, in the mind of the meanest individual, establish a conviction of any proposition, moral, religious, or mathematical. Indeed, you are too enlightened to doubt this, and therefore it is said, we do not exclude the Roman Catholics on account of their religion, but that we consider what they call their religion, to be evidence of tenets and affections which do not belong to religion, and which amount to a disregard of the obligation of an oath, and the duty of allegiance. Let us suppose sir George Jerningham tried on that charge, and that the arguments tendered in evidence were, the proceedings of the Here then I beg to observe on this part of the subject, first, that the Roman Catholics had a common law right to eligibility; secondly, that the parliament had in justice no right to require them to abjure their religion; thirdly, that the Roman Catholic religion is no evidence of perfidy or treason; fourthly, that you reject the Roman Catholics for what they have abjured, and you further require them to abjure that, which does not belong to the cognizance of the civil magistrate, namely, the articles of their religion; and in so doing, you commit that, for which a judge would be impeached, and a jury might be attainted. In continuing the disqualification of the Roman Catholic, we not only deprive them of the common law right of eligibility, but we affect the foundation of our own faith, and disobey the prime order of natural and revealed religion: when we say the Roman Catholic is affected with circumstances idolatrous, and incapable of moral obligation or political allegiance, we say the Roman Catholic religion is not divine; saying that, we affirm that Christianity does not extend to France, to Italy, to Spain, and a great part of Germany; saying that, we say that Christi anity has made no way, and of course deprive it of one great proof of its divinity; saying that, we say that the Pope has foiled his maker, that a man proves too strong for Almighty power, save where a few nations have rescued the wreck of his omnipotence from general discomfiture: the atheist hears all this, goes along with each sect, while it attacks the other, and instead of stopping short at Protestantism, proceeds to infidelity. I say we affect the foundation of our faith, and disobey a prime order of natural and revealed religion; a prime order of natural and revealed religion is to love one another; in no other way can you serve your Maker; prayer is adoration, not service; by serving one another, you . become a part of his creation, and an auxiliary member of his system; for this, the Redeemer came among you; he came, supported by miracle, prophecy, and the internal evidence of transcendent morals, to ordain two great truths; the love of God, and love of man: the love of man was not only the order but the object of his coming. You answer you don't obey; that your fellow christians are in general idolaters, and the object for the most part of moral disapprobation; God then has left mankind so imperfect, as to make his own commands impossible; and accordingly, we disqualify a great portion of our fellow citizens, and denounce a great proportion of our fellow christians, and disobey our gospel; except you can prove, that the gospel does not comprehend those who believe in seven sacraments, or that its blessings are to be confined to alms, and that the greater part of our fellow christians are objects of our charity, not of our benevolence. You answer this, by charges against the Roman Catholics. I have stated those charges to be unfounded, you yourselves do not believe them; you did not believe those charges in the 17th of the king, when you declared the Roman Catholics to be good and loyal subjects; you did not believe those charges when you gave them the right of bearing arms; you did not believe those charges when you gave them in Ireland the election franchise; you did not believe those charges when you gave them the army and navy; you did not believe those charges when you restored the popedom; you carried the pope on your back, the great infallible, whom you supposed would command the allegiance of your fellow subjects, but whom you found a feeble potentate, who could not command a Roman Catholic musket in the region of popery; strapped to the war-horse of great captain; violated in his own dominions; and whom the Roman Catholic nations had suffered to be deposed until the great Protestant power restored him:-I say, did you restore the mass in Italy, in order to punish your fellow subjects for popery?-no, but you saw the danger came from another quarter, you saw that Christianity of every sort was comparatively safe, but that infidelity of every description was dangerous. You did not believe these charges when you helped to restore the house of Bourbon, and with them to give new strength to the Roman Catholic religion in France; France had claimed to walk with reason, and despised to walk with God, and she stumbled; you saw that the cold acknowledgment of a first cause would ill supply the place of the living God, and glowing devotion; you saw that a Roman Catholic church establishment was a better guide than rueful philosophy, and that Christianity with seven sacraments, was better than infidelity; peace had lost the sweets of affiance, and war the properties of honor; and the reign of the philosopher was a proof of the necessity of religion. Accordingly, you waited for its revival-the revival of the Roman Catholic religion, as a means of faith, and a bond of treaty; and as you endeavoured to restore the principles of order, without disputing the particular government, so you endeavoured to revive the elements of Christianity, without disputing the particular religion; and in so doing, you introduced in Europe, a political conformity on the subject of religion; you cut off the hostile appeal to Roman Catholic princes, and accordingly, the different kings, Protestant and Roman Catholic, have united by the bond of christian fraternity to support the christian religion. You have changed the ecclesiastical position of Europe: the two religions, Protestant and Roman Catholic, had been in a state of mutual hostility, they are now in a state of mutual defence, each preferring its own establishment, but both concurring to defend the principle of government against the anarchist who should depose the king, and the principles of Christianity against the infidel, who would depose the Almighty; but you cannot limit the benefit of these principles to foreign powers; a conformity of religion abroad must be in substance a compre hension of religion at home; you cannot set up the pope in Italy, and punish popery in England; you cannot favor the religion of kings, and punish the same religion in subjects; that were to declare, that religion was an artifice of state, to protect power, and abridge liberty. But it is said, if you emancipate the Roman Catholics, their clergy will overturn the government, they will use their influence with their laity, and their laity will use their new power, and forfeit their lives in the vain attempt to give domination to their church; they rest this argument on a position which is fundamentally erroneous: it supposes that man struggles for the domination of his church establishment by nature; man is not attached to church establishment by nature; church establishment is a creature of art, and a question in politics, not a work of nature. The argument goes farther, and says, that men would prefer the domination of their church establishment to all considerations, moral or political; that is to say that all men are by nature fanatics: 'tis true, the Deity is a natural impression, but the bishop is not the Almighty: the Deity has come amongst us with the gospel in his hand, and the gospel contains a morality in the face of those ungrateful and rebellious proceedings here apprehended: the moral of the gospel is common to the Roman Catholics, and in this case the argument then would be, that the Roman Catholics would rise against their God, against their gospel, and against their king, to rebel with their clergy. This argument is not only not according to human nature, but the reverse; it supposes Dr. Poynter, an excellent subject, will upon the emancipation of his flock, say to the duke of Norfolk, your grace is now possessed of the privileges of the constitution, you will now of course try to subvert the government; that is to say, lose your head by a fruitless effort to get me made archbishop of Canterbury: it supposes that lord Shrewsbury, lerd Fingall, lord Clifford, excellent subjects when deprived of their privileges; on their emancipation, precipitate on treason: with them the moral elements are reversed; kindness revolts; injuries reconcile; strange men! such as human nature never created; you hug your thraldrom; you rebel against your privileges, and you fall in love with death, when it is to be administered by the hands of the common hangman. This argument arrives at last, to the monstrous palliation of two crimes. rebellion of the Roman Catholics for the ambition of their church, and pains and penalties imposed on the Roman Catholics for the exercise of their religion; and the gospel, instead of being a system of charity, becomes a scale of ferocity. The argument I combat, not only goes against the nature of man, but against the drift of the age: the question is not now, which church? but whether any, church or no church,-God or no God? When you attack the religion of Europe, you attack the religion of England;when you attack Dr. Troy, you attack the archbishop of Canterbury. In vain shall Oxford come forth and say, we never meant this, we only disapproved of auricular confession,-we abhorred extreme unction,-we petitioned against extending to the Roman Catholics the full benefits of the constitution;-the infidel or the sectary who will succeed the church of Rome will answer,-you swore the religion of Europe was a humbug (to use their low expression), and taught us to suspect your own; you argued that the hierarchy of Europe would overturn the governments that restrained its ambition, and thus you have swore so stoutly, and argued so well, that you have conquered your own religion:there is a great similitude ;-you send for the clergy when you are sick;—you send for the clergy when you are dying ;-your sacrament is more than a commemoration, though less than a transubstantiation; there are shades of difference it is true, but if their hierarchy be so abominable, your's cannot be pure, and in your common downfall, you will learn your similitude: I speak of the tendency of their argument, I do not speak of the conduct of our church upon the whole on this question. I think the church appears to be placable: I love the mild government of the church of England;-it is a home for piety; it is a cradle for science; so that by an early alliance with divinity, you guard the majesty of heaven against the rebellion of wit:-those who would send back. the clergy to the hair garment, and the naked foot, would be the first to deride ;— I like the arched roof, the cathedral state, the human voice, and all the powers of evangelic harmony, to give a soul to our duty, and sway the senses on the side of salvation-the wisest men we know of, Locke and Newton, were Christians and Protestants; it is the minor genius that |