« 前へ次へ »
enforcing other violations of neutral rights. I particularly wish the reader to bear in
Both parties were complained of by mind, that our Orders had, up to the moAmerica. Both parties call their measures ment of Napoleon's repeal of his Decrees, retaliatory.
Both parties allowed that always been acknowledged by us to contain their ineasures violated neutral rights. a violation of the known rights of neutrals; Both parties said they regretted that the but, in our justification, we said, that it measures had been forced upon them. was forced upon us by the Decrees of the Each party declared, over and over again, enemy. This was our language up to the in the most solemn manner, that the mo. moment of Napoleon's repeal. But, what ment the other removed or relaxed his says Lord Castlereagh now? So far from nieasures he should find a joyful imitator acknowledging, that the Orders in Counin the party declaring.-- -America pro-cil enforced a violation of any known neutested against the conduct of both. She tral right, he contends (if the report of said to us, that we had no right to violate his speech be correct) that they were her rights because they were violated by founded on our known primitive rights. France; and to France slie said, that she The words, as they stand in the report, are had no right to violate her rights because these :-" The Orders in Council had been they were violated by us. At last, 10“ a point on which considerable difference put the siucerity of the two parties to the "of opinion in this Country had prevailed, test, she passes a law, which says, that if," but they had been abandoned, not so . before the 1st of November 1810, both" much on the ground of this Country not parties have repealed their Decrees, their “ having THE RIGHT, as with a view to commercial and friendly intercourse with " commercial expediency. He rather wish. her shall continue; that, if one party does "ed, however, to wave the renewal of that. repeal and the other does not repeal by “ branch of the question, now that the that day, then her ports shall be shut " whole proceedings of Government were against the non-repealing power in February " before the House. With respect to the iš11.—Napoleon, in the month of Au-" main principles of that system, Ministers gust, 1810, issued a Decree by which were still unallered in their opinion, when his violating Decrees stood repealed on " the conservation of the Country rendered the 1st of the following November. This it necessary to resort to it. At the time new decree was communicated to our " the measure was adopted such a system ministers by the American minister in was necessary, not only as il respected London, who expressed his hope, that," France, but as connected with the soundagreeably to our many solemn declara "est policy for the general interests of the tions, we should hasten to follow the ex- “ British Empire. Had it not been for the ample of France. Our ministers answered “ manly resistance given by that measure in a sort of vague way; but, at any rate, " to the power of France, France now would they did not repeal; and, in February, "s have been as triumphant, in a commercial 1811, the law went into effect against us. point of view, as she was with respect to Our goods and our vessels were shut out of " the. Continent. He begged he might the American ports, while those of France "always be considered as an admirer of were admitted. We asserted, that Napo" that system."--Now, I state, that the leon had not repealed his decrees. Ame-Orders of Council themselves, and the rica asserted that he had, but we would not papers of our diplomatic agents, and the believe her. We insisted, that she did not Speeches of Sir William Scott, almost exknow the fact nearly so well as we did. In plicitly acknowledge, that the measure was to short, we continued to refuse to repeal.- be justified only on the ground of its being a At last, the great distresses and conse- relaliation on France ; and that, in the two quent complaints of the manufacturers led former, is expressed, His Majesty's earnest to an inquiry, at the bar of the House of desire to imitate France in doing away these Commons, into the effects of the Orders obnoxious measures. This was our lanin Council, when such a mass of evidence guage up to the moment when the repeal of was produced by Mr. Brougham in sup- the French Decrees was announced to us. port of the proposition, that the non-impor-Our language has, indeed, since changed s tation law of America was the principal and, it was, during the debates upon Mr. cause of those distresses, that the ininis. Brougham's motions, coolly argued, that the ters, Perceval being dead, gave way: and repeal of the Orders would make the Amethe Orders were repealed. This is the ricans the carriers of the commerce of the plain and true history of the matter, and world. But, though we have changed
our language, it does not follow that would confer no real benefit on the State; America should change hers. She always and that, as no alteration of law should contended that by the Orders of Council take place, unless it promotes the general her rights, were violated ; she always welfare of the State, the laws complained of contended, that all the seizure we made un- should remain in force. der those Orders were unjust ; and, of But we beg leave to submit to the consicourse, she demands indemnity for those deration of our countrymen, that the whole immense seizures.
-But, is it really so ; 1 kingdom would be essentially served by the can it be possible ; can the thing be, that a repeal of the penal laws remaining in force Secretary of State has asserted, in open Par- against His Majesty's Roman Catholic subliament, that, without any reference to the jects. On this head, the writer of these conduct of France, and that though the De- columns requests your particular attention. erees of Napoleon did notexist, we had a right Two-thirds of the population of Ireland, to do what was done, towards neutrals, under and no inconsiderable proportion of the pothe Orders in Council; and, that, when pulation of England, is composed of Roman ever we think proper, we have a right to Catholics. It is obvious that the feelings do the same again? If this be so; if this of this large proportion of the community assertion was made by the Minister for are wounded, in the highest degree, by the Foreign Affairs, and if it be meant to be penal and disabling laws to which they are maintained, then, certainly, the war with subject; and that they consider themselves America will be long indeed.-Reader, highly injured, insulted, and degraded by what was it that was done in virtue of them. Now, must it not be beneficial to these Orders in Council ?---I will give the State, that this extensive feeling of inyou an instance.
-An American-built sult, injury, and degradation should be ship, owned by a native American, man- healed ? Do not wisdom and sound policy ned by native Americans, laden with four, make it the interest of the State, that every or any thing else the growth of America, circumstance which leads this injured, inand bound from America to France, or to sulted, and degraded, but numerous porany other country named in the Orders in tion of the community, to think that any Council, was seized on the high seas by new.order of things must end their injury, any of our vessels of war, carried into any insult, and degradation, and is, therefore, of our ports, the ship, and cargo condemned, desirable, should be removed as soon as posand the master and his crew turned on sible? Surely the removal of it must be shore to beg or starve, or live and find as advantageous to the State, as it will be their way home as they could.--This advantageous and gratifying to the persons was what was done in virtue of the Or- individually benefited by it. ders in Council; and, if the Report be But this is not the only circumstance correct, this is what we have a right to do which would make the repeal of the penal towards neutrals again, “ whenever the laws a general benefit to the State. Again 6 conservation of the country' calls for it; we request you to consider the immense that is to say, whenever our government number of His Majesty's Roman Catholic thinks proper to cause it to be done! subjects, and the great proportion which it Now, I will not waste my time and that of | bears to the rest of the community.-What the reader by any discussion upon maritime a proportion of genius, of talent, of energy, and neutral rights; but will just ask him of every thing else, by which individuals this one question : if we have a right to are enabled to distinguish themselves, and act thus iowards America, whenever we benefit and elevate their country, must fall thing proper, she being at peace with us, to their share :-But all this, for the prewhat can she lose in the way of trade, what sent, is lost to you, in consequence of the can she risk, in changing that state of peace penal codes. Is the subtraction of this for a state of war? In my next I shall prodigious mass of probable genius, talent, discuss the other points brought forward in and wisdom, from the general stock, no de this debate.
triment to the State ?-Surely it is.a na. WM. COBBETT. tional loss. Thus while the penal code ha
rasses the individual object of its infliction,
it contracts and paralyzes, to an amazing CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
degree, the strength, powers, and energies ADDRESS to the Prolestants of Great Bri- of the whole community.
tain, br. continued from page 224.) Roman Catholics would benefit them, il It is alleged, that the Roman Catholics
of this kingdom enjoy the most full and li-, in question; some persons might have conberat Toleration, and thal Toleration is tended for the wisdom of the statutes, but the utmost favour to which any non-con- none could have contended that they were formist to the religion established by law not highly penal. But whatever difference can reasonably aspire.
there may be in the degree of penal inflicTo this, we beg leave to answer, that tion, there is none in the penal quality of toleration, rightly understood, is all we ask those statutes, which deprive persons of for by our Petition. But what is toleration, offices, and those which deprive them of when the word is rightly understood ? If, the prior legal eligibility to them. The after a Government has adopted a particu- right of possessing an office, the right of lar religion, decreed its mode of worship succeeding to it, and the right of eligibility to be observed in its churches, and pro- to it, are equally civil rights. There is no vided for its functionaries, froin the funds difference in this respect between offices and of the State, it leaves the non-conformist landed property—the right to possess an in complete possession of all their civil estate, to succeed to it, and to acquire it, rights and liberties, the non-conformist en are equally civil rights. The justice or pojoys a full and complete Toleration. But licy of these laws is not now under our whenever the government of a country re consideration-the simple question before presses other forms of religion, by subject-us is, whether eligibility to offices and ing those who profess them, to any depriva-election into corporations, were not by the tion or abridgment of civil right or liberty, common law the civil right of every Eng. Toleration is at an end, and Persecution lishman, and whether his being deprived begins.
of it was not a penal infliction. It is imThis is too plain a position to admit of possible to deny it. This infiction reaches contradiction ; the only question, therefore, every description of non-conformists to the is, whether the pains and penalties to established Church: their religion, therewhich the Roman Catholics are still subject fore, is not tolerated—it is persecuted. by the laws in force against them, deprive on the policy, the justice, or degree of that them of any civil right or liberty.
persecution, there may be a difference of To meet this question fully, I shall con- opinion ; but that, in some degree at least, sider, how far the Corporation Act, which it is a persecution it seems impossible to. excludes us from Corporations, and the deny. Thus we seem to arrive at this Test Act, which excludes us from Civil questionable conclusion, that, in point of and Military Offices, can be justly said to fact, all non-conformists are persecuted. deprive us of a civil right. I prefer placing the difference between Roman Catholics the question on these acts, because, by their and other non-conformists, is, that Roman own confession, it is the strongest hold of Catholics are subject to pains and disabiliour adversaries, and because, in the dis- ties which do not affect any other descrip. cussion of that question, thus propounded, tion of non-conformists. The Roman Ca. I shall'advocate the cause of the Protestant tholics, therefore, are the most persecuted Dissenters' as much as our own,
of all, Our common adversaries contend, that Here, then, we close with our adversathe exclusion of non-conformists, by the ries'; we seek not to interfere with the estaTest and Corporation Acts, from honour-blished Church, with her hierarchy, with able lucrative offices, is not a punishment, her endowinents, with her tithes, with any and, therefore, is not intolerance.
thing else that contributes to her honour, But before the enactment of those sta- her comfort, or' her security. Give us but tutes, were not all the subjects of this realm toleration in the true sense of that much equally eligible, by the common of the abused word, and we claim no more. Ву land, to every honourable and every lucra- the oath prescribed to the Roman Catholics tive office which the State could confer? of Ireland, by the 33d of His present MaIs not eligibility to office a' civil right? jesty, the Roman Catholic swears~" That Does it not, therefore, necessarily follow," he will defend to the utmost of his that every statute which deprived non-con- power, the settlement and arrangement formists of their right of eligibility to of- of property in that country, as establishfice, deprived them of a civil right, and" ed by the laws now in being; and he was therefore penal? If Roman Catholics thereby disclaims, disavows, and solemn; had been in possession of these offices, and “ ly abjures any intention to subvert the deprived of them in consequence of their f“ présent Church establishment, for the adherence to their religion by the státutes" purpose of substituting a Catholic estas
“blishment in its stead; and he solemnly fere by any form or mode of temporal
swears, ihat he will not exercise any power, in spiritual concerns. This the Irish,
privilege to which he is or may be en- Scottish, and English Roman Catholics "titled, to discurb or weaken the Protest- have sworn, and they act up to their oaths. ant religion, and Protestant goveróment
VI. " in that kingdom."
I proceed to another charge :—Il is asV.
serted to be a lenel of our faith, or, at least, But it is suggested, that though il should a received opinion among us, that the Pope be conceded, that all other non-conformisls or the Church has a right to absolve subjects to the Church of England ought to be ad- from their allegiance to their Sovereign. milled to a free and complete toleration, the
But this doctrine has been most solemnly Roman Catholics should be excluded from il abjured by us, in the oaths which we have on account of their acknowledgment of the taken to Government. It is disclaimed by Supremacy of the Pope.
the opinions of the foreign universities, and This admits of a very easy answer. The Pope Pius the Vith proscribed it, by his Roman Catholics certainly acknowledge the rescript of the 17th of June, 1791. spiritual supremacy of the Pope ; but they
VII, deny his temporal authority; they acknow- The same may be said of the charge ledge no right either in the Pope, or in any brought against us of holding il lawful lo Council, to interfere in any manner in tem- kill any Sovereign or any private person poral concerns, or to interfere, by any mode under excommunication. This doctrine of temporal power, in concerns of a spiritual also is disclaimed by us, in our oaths, as nature. By the oath prescribed to the Eng-" unchristian and impious;" it is disclaimlish Roman Catholics, by the 31st of His ed in terms, equally strong, in the answers present Majesty, we swear, that "we do of the foreign Universities, and Pope Pius
not believe that the Pope of Rome, or the VIth, in his rescript of 1791, solemnly " any other foreign prince, prelate, state, declares such a murder " to be a horrid " or potentate hath, or ought to have, any " and detestable crime." “ temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, su
VIII. periority, or pre-eminence, directly, or The same answer may also be given to indirectly, within the realm."
the charge, of its being a tenet of our church, The Irish and Scottish Roman Catholic that it is lawful to break faith with heretics. subjects of His Majesty take a similar oath. In our oaths, we disclaim that doctrine also, The answers given by the foreign universi-" as impious and unchristian," and the ties to the questions proposed to them by terms in which it is disclaimed in the anthe direction of Mr. Pitr, the doctrines laid swers of the foreign Universities, are equaldown in all our catechisms, and otherly strong. But, without entering further standard books of authority, express the on the subject of this charge, we make this same belief. In the oath taken by the Irish solemn appeal upon it, to the feelings and Roman Catholics they swear, that " it is common sense of every 'reader of these ca;
not an article of the Catholic faith, and Jumns :--Does not the single circumstance; " that they are not thereby bound to be of our being, after the lapse of 200 years, .“ lieve or profess, that the Pope is infalli- petitioners to Parliament for the repeal of ble; or that they are not bound to obey the penal and disabling laws to which we
any order, in its own nature immoral, are subject, in consequence of our not taking " though the Pope or any ecclesiastical oaths, the taking of which would, at once,
power should issue or direct such an have delivered us from all these pénalties “ order ; but that, on the contrary, they and disabilities, prové, beyond all exception '" hold it'sinful in them to pay any regard and argument, that we do not believe the H'to such an order."
existence of any power which can dispense * It is said, that the Popes on several oc. with the obligation of an oath. On this casions have claimed and exercised the right head I beg leave to add my own testimony of temporal power. We acknowledge it, 1-having; in almost every stage of life, and wé lament it. But the fact is of little lived in habits of acquaintance or intimacy consequence; no Roman Catholic now be with all descriptions of Roman Catholics'; lieves, that either Pope or Council, or both the young, the old, the literate, the illite
Pope and Council acting together, have, or rate, foreigners and natives, ecclesiastic ought to have, any right to interfere by any and secular, I never knew one who did not form or mode, either of temporal or spi- hear the charge in question with indignaritual power, in civil concerns; or to inter- tion, and treat it as an execrable calumny.
But it is said that the Council of Lateran 2. That the Pope, or Cardinals, or any assumed a right to temporal power, and Body of Men, or any Individual of the that the Council of Constance authorized the Church of Rome, CANNOT absolve or violation of the safe conduct granted to John dispense with His Majesty's Subjects from Huss. Both of those facts are positively their Oath of Allegiance, upon any pre-, denied by the Roman Catholics. This is text whatsoever. not a place for discussing the point-but, 3. That there is no Principle in the Tenets what does it signify ?-If the Council of of the Catholic Faith, by which CathoLateran claimed for the Pope, or itself, a lics are justified in not keeping Faith with right to temporal power, it did wrong; if Heretics, or other Persons differing from the Council of Constance authorized the them in Religious Opinions, in any violation of the safe conduct, it did infa- Transactions either of a public or a pri.. mously, and there's an end on't.
vate Nature. 1X.
Nothing can be more explicit than the Having had frequent occasion to mention answers of the Foreign Universities—some in these columns the answers of the Foreign of them express perfect wonder, that such Universilies lo certain questions proposed to questions should be proposed to them by a them by the direction of Mr. Pitt, the reader nation that glories in her learning and diswill probably wish to be better informed of cernment. the circumstances attending the transaction. As soon as the opinions of the Foreign
In the year 1786, the Committee of the Universities were received, they were transEnglish Catholics waited on Mr. Pitt, re- mitted to Mr. Pitt. But the Roman Caspecting their application for a repeal of the tholics wish it to be most distinctly underpenal laws. He requested to be furnished stood, that it was for his satisfaction, not with authentic evidence of the opinions of their's, that these opinions were taken, the Roman Catholic Clergy, and the Roman Assuredly, His Majesty's Roman Catholic Catholic Universities abroad, “ on the ex- subjects did not want the wisdom of Foreign * istence and extent of the Pope's dispens- Universities to inform them, that His Ma. "ing power.” Three questions were ac- jesty is the lawful Sovereign of all his Ro. cordingly framed, and submitted to his ap- man Catholic Subjects, and that by every probation. As soon as it was obtained, they divine and human law, his Roman Catholic were sent to the Universities of Paris, Lou- subjects owe him true, dutiful, active, and vain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca, and Val- unreserved allegiance. ladolid, for their opinions. The questions The originals of these questions and of the proposed to them were
answers to them, with the notarial authen. 1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any Body tications of them, have been produced in
of Men, or any Individual of the Church the House of Commons by Sir John Cox of Rome, any Givil Authority, Power, Hippisley. They are in the custody of the Jurisdiction, or Pre-eminence whatsoever, writer of these columns, and are open to the within the Realm of England ?
inspection of every person who wishes to 2. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any inspect them. Body of Men, or any Individual of the
X. Church of Rome, absolve or dispense It is also objected to the Roman Cathowith His Majesty's Subjects from their lics, that it is an article of their faith, or, Oath of Allegiance, upon any pretext at least, that they consider it to be lawful whatsoever ?
to persecule Herelics for their religious opi3. Is there any Principle in the Tenets of nions. All this the Roman Catholics most
the Catholic Faith, by which Catholics explicitly deny, and they consider it is comare justified in not keeping Faith with pletely denied in the solemn disclaimers Heretics, or other Persons differing from made by them in all their oaths, of the dithem in Religious Opinions, in any rect or indirect right of the Pope or the
Transaction, either of a public or a pri-church to temporal power; as without temvate Nature ?
poral power persecution cannot subsist. The Universities answered unanimously, They admit that many persons of their 1. That the Pope, or Cardinals, or any communion, both ecclesiastic and secular,
Body of Men, or any Individual of the have, at' different times, been guilty of the Church of Rome, has not any Civil crime of religious persecution; but they Authority, Power, Jurisdiction, or Pre- blame the conduct of those persons as seeminence whatsoever, within the Realm verely as it is blamed by their Protestant of England.