« ElőzőTovább »
This is most important to consider-for the Roman Catholics under the previous government of France, that of Napoleon, had every inducement to be liberal, and none whatever to acquire a spirit of intolerance and persecution. I ask the House to bear in mind the circumstance alluded to by the honourable member for Corfe Castle, (Mr. Bankes)-the restoration of the Jesuits, and the active manner in which they are engaged pushing forward their course in every state on the continent of Europe.
"I recollect having many years ago read a popular work, The History of the Order of the Jesuits;' and I also recollect that, at that time, I felt the utmost astonishment how the world could ever have been so formed, as to tolerate or submit to such an institution. Little did I then think, that ere a few years should pass away, I should see the same most odious order revived. It is unnecessary for me to speak of the dangerous tendency of an order, which requires in every individual member of it, complete, blind, and implicit obedience to the commands of the superior, without any attempt on his part to question their justice. That order is now spreading over every corner of continental Europe, and acting in secresy, and in vigour, to obtain their former power and control over private conduct and public proceedings, without any responsibility to the government of the countries where its influence prevails.
"Under these circumstances, my argument is this, if securities were necessary for our Protestant Establishment in 1813-the advocates of the Roman Catholics admitted that they were-do not the facts to which I have alluded render such securities equally necessary at the present moment? I know that at this moment the Jesuits are employed in conducting the education of youth throughout different countries. This alone is sufficient to form a foundation of their future absolute power. Who can view the artful and insidious, the criminal and daring conduct of the Jesuits in France, in order to re-establish their sway-who can contemplate the encouragement given to them in that country, and say that the Protestant Church can dispense with her legitimate means of defence-the right to demand securities from the Roman Catholics ere any concessions be made to them.
"Is this the only circumstance on which I rely? By no means. Every body rejoiced when the Inquisition in Europe was abolished. That dreadful instrument of the power, the vengeance, and the tyranny of the Roman Catholic religion, at the shrine of which so many unfortunate victims had been sacrificed; that most guilty contrivance to extirpate heresy, had fallen before the French Revolution. But guilty as this tribunal had been in its practice, infamous as it was in its pretensions, and contrary as were its principles to every maxim of jurisprudence and
dictate of justice, it had been re-established in full force throughout Spain and Italy.
66 It is in vain to attribute this most detestable measure-the re-establishment of the Inquisition -to the civil government. It was authorized by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
"Is there less reason now, and when such are the circumstances of the Roman Catholic religion, to demand security, than at the former period, when it was thought necessary by the advocates of the measure?"
"If," says the Quarterly Reviewer, " they represent the concessions which are called for as an act of grace, they argue against the ungraciousness of clogging it with conditions. Do they advise it as a capitulation, to which imperious circumstances must inevitably reduce the government? Then they insist, that to stand out for terms will serve only to prolong hostile feelings, which cannot too soon be allayed; but that the part of wisdom should be to gratify the victorious party, and excite in them a kindly disposition, by placing a generous confidence in them, and making an unconditional surrender. And they pretend that this may be done safely, for the Roman Catholics, as a body, neither have, nor can have, any ulterior object, although individuals among them, irritated by long opposition to their first and just claims, may have used intemperate language, and had recourse to unjustifiable, and even perilous means. But
place them on an equal footing with their Protestant fellow-subjects, and they will then desire nothing more, because there will then be nothing more for them to desire. Take their clergy into the pay of the state, and the dogs of darkness, contented each with his sop, will neither bark nor bite. Throw open the houses of Parliament to the laity, and admit them to all offices, and the roots of the Roman Catholic strength will then be cut the great families among them are attached to their faith, less by any clear principle of conscientious assent, than by resentment and pride; and were the cause of that resentment removed, and the provocation to that pride no longer administered, they might be expected soon to become English in their faith, as well as in all their other feelings. Divested of declamation, and of such fallacies as have previously been noticed, these are the arguments of those emancipationists who argue in good faith. Are they entreated to call to mind the examples with which, for our instruction and warning, history abounds? History, they tell us, is an old almanack; with the course of events, they say, every thing has changed. The Roman Catholic religion is no longer what it was; the Protestant constitution of these kingdoms must, therefore, be modified, so as no longer to exclude the members of that church. There can be no danger in investing them with power in the state, because they have repeatedly disclaimed what
ever might be deemed dangerous in the tenets of their ancestors; but, were it otherwise, any danger on that score might properly be despised, for it is no longer by questions, arising out of religious differences, that the tranquillity of nations, and more especially of an enlightened nation like this, can be disturbed.
"We were told,' said Mr. Peel, a few years ago, that the influence of religion was fast dying away; and we were asked, with pity for our credulity, if we thought any men would now occupy themselves with religion? Religion, we were told, was, even on the Continent, only a volcano burnt out, that could never be rekindled. I remember, Sir, when Mr. Whitbread, in the course of an eloquent speech delivered in this House fifteen years ago, ridiculed the apprehensions that were then expressed, as to religious feelings ever again exercising any influence over mankind. "Look," said he, "at Paris: was there any fear that religion would be revived at Paris? Was it to be expected that Buonaparte would revive religion? Could he excite any apprehensions? Could the Pope excite any apprehensions? Why, he was Buonaparte's prisoner, and must remain subservient to him. Was there any apprehension of the Jesuits being restored?"
"Mr. Whitbread asked these questions in the year 1812, with the confidence of one who would have deemed it absurd to suppose that any man