A REVIEW OF CERTAIN Anti-Catholic Publications, VIZ. A CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER, 1810, IN BY GEORGE ISAAC HUNTINGFORD, D.D. F.R.S. BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER, (Reprinted in 1812.) A CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF LINCOLN, IN 1812. BY GEORGE TOMLINE, D.D. F.R.S. AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION, BY THE RIGHT HON. LORD KENYON. Qui parti civium consulunt, partem negligunt, rem perniciosissiman in civitatem inducunt, seditionem atque discordiam. Cic. de officiis. ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN 1813. A REVIEW, &c. &c. THAT a regular opposition to the Catholic Claims has lately been organized, must be evident to the most inattentive observer. The clergy have been placed in the front of the battle; and, with the cry of danger to the church has been coupled that of danger to the constitution. To perpetuate religious disabilities, episcopal charges have been published, meetings of the clergy have been held, and petitions from dioceses, colleges, and archdeaconries, have been poured into both houses of parliament In aid of these efforts, the press also has been put into requisition: and the labours of the anti-catholic journalists, the establishment of an anti-catholic magazine, and the diffusion of anti-catholic tracts, published in every shape, and adapted to every understanding, bear honourable testimony to the zeal and activity of those who assume the lead in this orthodox crusade. The Catholic, however, when he looks back on the past, will learn to hope well of the future. He will observe that the irritating objections of former times are now almost shamed out of parliament, and can hardly support their credit among the most suspicious and least informed Protestants. He will see that our opponents have uniformly been compelled to shift their ground from position to position; and, after pertinaciously defending each, have ended by retreating to another. At first we were accused of favouring the claims of the Stuarts: the extinction of that family has put an end to the charge. We were then told that Catholics could not be bound by oaths; though oaths had been wisely devised as the best safeguard against their supposed perfidy. Next, the fathers of the great council of Lateran were marshalled against us; as if men were to be punished at the present day, because Protestants will not understand the regulations of feudal princes and feudal prelates, six centuries ago. Afterwards, we were reproached with the deposing power and temporal pretensions of the pope; but this reproach was set at rest by the answers of the foreign universities. Lastly, came the coronation oath: men, however, could not be persuaded, that, by promising to maintain the liberties of the church, the king was bound to deprive of their rights all those who dissent from it. Each of these arguments, in its day, was deemed unanswerable; each has yielded to discussion. Past advantages are an earnest of future success; and the abolition of former prejudices affords reason to hope, that, in a short time, religious opinions will cease to be considered a sufficient cause for political restraints. Driven from these outworks, the anti-catholics now seek to intrench themselves round the constitution; and, under the shelter of that venerable name, keep up a fierce and protracted opposition. It is not, however, for the constitution in reality that they fight, but for the tests and disqualification with which it was hedged round, in a period of religious animosity and distrust. For whatever purpose these were planted originally, they may now be safely eradicated. They serve not to protect, but to disfigure. The British constitution is not a constitution of restraints and penalties. It was framed to preserve the rights of freemen. It was made for the whole, not for a part. It was designed, like the sun, to shed its benign influence upon all: not to disfranchise one-fourth of the population of the empire, seven-eighths of the people of Ireland. Though it is not to be expected, that on matters of great national importance, and which involve many individual interests, all men should come to the same conclusion, it would, nevertheless, be decent in those, who so loudly pronounce the Catholic Claims incompatible with the constitution, were they to pause, when they reflect that their opinion stands in contradiction to the opinion of the greatest men that this empire ever produced. As long as we shall retain any respect for genius and discernment, for parliamentary eloquence and political wisdom, the names of Pitt and of Fox, of Burke and of Windham, will stand foremost in the public esteem.* These eminent statesmen, however they might differ on other subjects, concurred in supporting the cause of the Catholics. It was not with them a party question, or an opinion formed or maintained for particular purposes. Their's was the conviction of liberal and enlightened minds, that forgot the distinctions of party in their zeal to serve their country, and were neither ignorant of the nature, nor enemies to the stability, of the constitution. It would be strange, indeed, were a measure, which they unanimously deemed essential to the prosperity of the empire, to prove, as we are told it will, pregnant with mischief to the established church, and subversive of the principles which placed the House of Brunswick on the throne. Be that, however, as it may, a strong ray of political light has lately burst from the pulpit. The Bishops of * ،، Without fear of contradiction," says the Bishop of Norwich, "the judgment of four such men as Mr. Burke, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, "and Mr. Windham, carries far more weight, on a question like this, "than the judgment of both the universities, and indeed all the divines "who ever sat in convocation under the dome of St. Paul's, or in the "Jerusalem Chamber, to the present hour."-Bishop of Norwich's Speech in 1811. |