« AnteriorContinuar »
volution (as they are commonly denominated) acquired their greatness and their glory, not by a superstitious reverence for inapplicable precedents, but by taking hold of present circumstances to lay a deep foundation for Liberty; and then using old names for new things, they left the Bishop of Lincoln, and other good men, to suppose that they had been thinking all the time about ancestors. Another species of false reasoning, which pervades the Bishop of Lincoln's Charge, is this: He states what the interests of men are, and then takes it for granted that they will eagerly and actively pursue them ; laying totally out of the question the probability or improbability of their effecting their object, and the influence which this balance of chances must produce upon their actions. For instance, it is the interest of the Catholics that our Church should be subservient to theirs, Therefore, says his Lordship, the Catholics will enter into a conspiracy against the English Church. But, is it not also the decided interest of his Lordship's butler that he should be Bishop, and the Bishop, his butler ? That the crozier and the corkscrew should change hands, – and the washer of the bottles which they had emptied become the diocesan of learned divines 2 What has prevented this change, so beneficial to the upper domestic, but the extreme improbability of success, if the attempt were made; an improbability so great, that we will venture to say, the very notion of it has scarcely once entered into the understanding of the good man. Why then is the Reverend Prelate, who lives on so safely and contentedly with John, so dreadfully alarmed at the Catholics 2 And why does he so completely forget, in their instance alone, that men do not merely strive to obtain a thing because it is good, but always mingle with the excellence of the object a consideration of the chance of gaining it 2 The Bishop of Lincoln (p. 19.) states it as an argument against concession to the Catholics, that we have enjoyed ‘internal peace and entire freedom from all religious animosities and feuds since the Revolution.’ The fact, however, is not more certain than conclusive against his view of the question. For, since that period, the worship of the Church of England has been abolished in Scotland — the Corporation and Test Acts repealed in Ireland—and the whole of this King's reign has been one series of concessions to the Catholics. Relaxation then (and we wish this had been remembered at the Charge) of penal laws, on subjects of religious opinion, is perfectly compatible with internal peace, and exemption from religious animosity. ut the Bishop is always fond of lurking in generals, and cautiously avoids coming to any specific instance of the dangers which he fears.
“It is declared in one of the 39 Articles, that the King is Head of our Church, without being subject to any Foreign Power; and it is expressly said that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction within these realms. On the contrary, Papists assert, that the Pope is supreme Head of the whole Christian Church, and that Allegiance is due to him from every Individual member, in all spiritual matters. This direct opposition to one of the fundamental Principles of the Ecclesiastical part of our Constitution, is alone sufficient to justify the exclusion of Papists from all situations of authority. They acknowledge indeed that obedience in civil matters is due to the king. But cases must arise, in which civil and religious Duties will clash; and he knows but little of the influence of the Popish Religion over the minds of its votaries, who doubts which of these Duties would be sacrificed to the other. Moreover, the most subtle casuistry cannot always discriminate between temporal and spiritual things; and in truth the concerns of this life not unfrequently partake of both characters.”—(pp. 21, 22.)
We deny entirely that any case can occur, where the exposition of a doctrine purely speculative, or the arrangement of a mere point of Church discipline, can interfere with civil duties. The Roman Catholics are Irish and English citizens at this moment; but no such case has occurred. There is no instance in which obedience to the civil magistrate has been prevented, by an acknowledgment of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The Catholics have given (in an oath which we suspect the Bishop never to have read) the most solemn pledge, that their submission to their spiritual ruler should never interfere with their civil obedience. The hypothesis of the Bishop of Lincoln is, that it must very often do so. The fact is, that it has never done so. His Lordship is extremely angry with the Catholics, for refusing to the Crown a veto upon the appointment of their Bishops. He forgets, that in those countries of Europe where the Crown interferes with the appointment of Bishops, the reigning monarch is a Catholic, which makes all the difference. We sincerely wish that the Catholics would concede this point; but we cannot be astonished at their reluctance to admit the interference of a Protestant Prince with their Bishops. What would his Lordship say to the interference of an Catholic power with the appointment of the E. sees 2 Next comes the stale and thousand times refuted charge against the Catholics, that they think the Pope has the power of dethroning heretical Kings; and that it is the duty of every Catholic to use every possible means to root out and destroy heretics, &c. To all of which may be returned this one conclusive answer, that the Catholics are ready to deny these doctrines upon oath. And as the whole controversy is, whether the Catholics shall, by means of oaths, be excluded from certain offices in the State: – those who contend that the continuation of these excluding oaths are essential to the public safety, must admit, that oaths are binding upon Catholics, and a security to the State that what they swear to is true. It is right to keep these things in view—and to omit no opportunity of exposing and counteracting that spirit of intolerant zeal or intolerable time-serving, which has so long disgraced and endangered this country. But the truth is, that we look upon this cause as already gained;— and while we warmly congratulate the nation on the mighty step it has recently made towards increased power and entire security, it is impossible to avoid saying a word upon the humiliating and disgusting, but at the same time most edifying spectacle, which
has lately been exhibited by the Anticatholic addressers. That so great a number of persons should have been found with such a proclivity to servitude (for honest bigotry had but little to do with the matter), as to rush forward with clamours in favour of intolerance, upon a mere surmise that this would be accounted as acceptable service by the present possessors of patronage and power, affords a more humiliating and discouraging picture of the present spirit of the country, than any thing else that has occurred in our remembrance. The edifying part of the spectacle is the contempt with which their officious devotions have been received by those whose favour they were intended to purchase, and the universal scorn and derision with which they were regarded by independent men of all parties and persuasions. The catastrophe, we think, teaches two lessons; one to the time-servers themselves, not to obtrude their servility on the Government, till they have reasonable ground to think it is wanted;—and the other to the nation at large, not to imagine that a base and interested clamour in favour of what is supposed to be agreeable to Government, however loudly and extensively sounded, affords any indication at all, either of the general sense of the country, or even of what is actually contemplated by those in the administration of its affairs. The real sense of the country has been proved, on this occasion, to be directly against those who presumptuously held themselves out as its organs; — and even the Ministers have made a respectable figure, compared with those who assumed the character of their champions.
LETTERS WRITTEN IN A MAHRATTA CAMP DURING THE YEAR 1809. (E. Review, 1813.)
Letters written in a Mahratta Camp during the Year 1809. By Thomas Duer Broughton. 1813. Murray, Albemarle Street.
THIS is a lively, entertaining, well-written book; and we can conscientiously recommend it to our readers. Mr. Thomas Duer Broughton does not, it is true, carry any great weight of metal; but, placed in a curious and novel scene, he has described what he saw from day to day, and preserved, for the amusement of his readers, the impressions which those scenes made upon him, while they were yet strong and fresh. The journals of military men are given to the public much more frequently than they used to be; and we consider this class of publications as one of great utility and importance. The duties of such men lead them into countries very little known to Europeans, and give to them the means of observing and describing very striking peculiarities in manners, habits, and governments. To lay these before the public is a praiseworthy undertaking; and, if done simply and modestly (as is the case with this publication), deserves great encouragement. Persons unaccustomed to writing, are prevented from attempting this by the fear of not of sufficiently well; but where there is any thing new and entertaining to tell, the style becomes of comparatively little importance. He who lives in a Mahratta camp, and tells us what he hears and sees, can scarcely tell it amiss. As far as mere style is concerned, it matters very little whether he writes like Caesar or Nullus. Though we praise Mr. Broughton for his book, and praise him very sincerely, we must warn him against that dreadful propensity which young men have for writing verses. There is