The New York Herald Newspaper, May 16, 1854, Page 7

with this mental derangement. We have fourteen treaties with other nations, there may be more, but that number Iam sure of, and I shall advert to thom again for another purpose before closing my remarks, in which the ‘freedom of conscience,” “the liberty of con- science,” ‘ the security of conscience,” for these terms are indiscriminately employed, and obviously with the game meaning, is made the subject of negotiation and If these rights cannot be violated, couven- tional protection for them is but a solemn farce, in which dgnorance and imbecility may contend for pre-eminence. The principle advanced by Archbishop Hughes, and the Gllustrations in support of it, are sadly inconsistent swith each other. Butadhering to the former and re- jecting the latter, he maintains that freedom of con- science is beyond the reach of human logislation; but external action which the worl! considers, and justly, as the true freedom of conscience, may be tue rightfal ob- ject of control,and while the former is shut up in its fortress, the latter may be dealt_with at the pleasure of ‘the ruler. I cannot ascertain, from a careful perusal of Archbishop Hughes’ remarks,’ what practical limitation, if any, there is to the exercise of this power, for he says, “This external liberty of action in all countries is ted, to a certain exient, by the enactment of posi- tive laws. In some countries the range is wider, in others more restricted, but it is limited in all, not ex- cepting the United States.” ‘The human conscience em- races in its operations a vast field of duty, the extent of which it is not necessary for any purpose | have in view ‘to examine, [am dealing’with a practical question, with the freodom of religious wership, one of the branches of the rights of conscience. Whatever illustrations, tho receive from other considerations, these sutlect sneewiory, and 1 design to restrict my investigation {fo the freedom of religious worship: To the relations, as Thave said, between # man ani his maker. The object ‘ef our proposed action is to procure-for American citi- gens abroad immunity from local laws, so far as these in Yerfere with the liberty of worshipping God. With res- t to other conscientious scruples in the aifairs of hfe ‘which men may be placed in opposition to munici Tews, as the subject is not now in my way, I shall not turn aside to soek it. Pradent governments should avoid, as far as muy be, the adoption of measures revolting to the moral sense of their people. But, sir, I say, as I said on a former occasion, Iam no believer in what has been falsely called the higher law, for it should be called the Jower law, or rather no law at all, as the principle in- ‘Yolved in it would be destructive of all law, leaving every man free from the obligation of legal obedience, who should declare he had conscientious scruples respecting submission; and I say also, thst if aman is required by Jaw to do what he thinks he ought not todo, the only ‘course by which he can reconcile his faith and his duty ia to sit still and suffer as » martyr, instead of resisting ‘asa criminal, unless indeed the oppressive acts result in revolution, That was the doctrine and the practice of the Apostles, And he who believes that any other is consistent with the maintenance of social order, for a single day, in the face of the hallucinations of the human intellect, or of the pretexts pf human hypocrisy, has yet to learn the very first rudiments of the nature of man. But the inquiry 1am waking is into the rights of Tulers, not into the duty of the ruled. And this brings me to the true point, whether governments may right- fully control at their will the religious opinions of their citizens, and I mean by controlling them, the just authority to punish all who disobey their man- dates. Now, sir, Iam not going to argue this topic at this day ‘and in ‘this country—1 shoud consider my own time and yours, badly employed in such an effort. If there is one inciple in the whole range of political systems, in which ‘of this country are more united, than in any this very principle of the entire freedom of religious worship. "It belongs, as they feel andk now, to ieee ‘of God, and not to the kingdom of man, and Iehall, therefore, confine myself to the consideration of the views given by Archbishop Hughes, upon this me- mentous topic. In the paragraph before quoted, they are distinctly stated, and strange indeed are they to be thus preaented to the American community. ‘There are two puints ittvolved in this branch of the subject, which for the sake of ‘precision, it is well to separate. The first is the right of goveraments to make conformity with a particular profession of relizion, @ condition precedent to any share in their administra- tion, either as electors or as office holders. ‘This princi- le i in my opinion, equally impolitic and unjust, but ReGoen not enter into the present enquiry, which relates to a higher subject, the freedom of conscience, its immunity from human restraints,and not to the freedom of mere pu- Utical privileges. This discussion turns upon the claim of governments to control the religious freedom of their ple by prohibiting the exercise of any religious but Fhe dominant one establiahel by the State, or by re- quiring all within their jurisdiction to conform toit. I ‘am aware of the apologies for this monstrous usurpa- tion which are to be found in some of the European cle- mentary writers. They do not weigh one feather with not enough to justify even a consideration of their views—arguments there are none. Their day has gone , and contempt is the only feeling excited in the breast bs fs ‘American by such sentiments as the following. The type of their class advanced with all due gravity by a lobrated, perhaps the most celebrated, writer upon Batural law:—“There is nothing on earth more august and sacred than a sovereign; and why should God, who calls him by his providence to watch over the safety and happiness of a whole nation, deprive him of the direction of the most powerful spring (religion) that actuates mankind?” and therefore he has ‘‘a right to examine ite doctrines, and to point out what is to he taught, and what is to be suppressed in silence.’” And this experi- ment upon the credulity of mankind is made by a writer ‘who was acotemporary of Elizabeth and of Catharine the Second of Russia, of Louis Fifteenth of France, and of G the Second of England, four persons utterly debased in character and morals, living in open contempt of the laws of God and of the opinions of the world. This monarchical monomania plays fantastic tricks with the human Jolene I do not refer to the rational considerations which may justify the establishment o that form of government in many countries, but I refer to that sublimation of the imagination by which the wearing of s crown instead of a hat deifies the possessor, be he Log or King Stork, giving him a just right to control the conscience of his subjects, even, as ofter happens, when he has none of his own. “My opinion,” says another eminent commentator upon the law of natu: Jot nations, “is that the sa- authority in matters of religion ought necessarily belong to the sovereign.” If this is not intended aa & satire upon religious intolerance, it is itself a satire upon human nature. I should as soon think, at this Gay, of seriously undertaking to refute the dogma of the divine right to reign or to establish the just authori- of a people to change their government, as to show ther the regulation of religious worship is not within the legitimate sphere of political systems, and I should Den as soon think of undertaking to prove that the is not an exte.ded plain, round which the heavenly orbs revolve, ax to enter arguimentatively into either of the other topics. This freedom of religious worship is an instinctive persuasion—a moral axiom, indeed, for the American understanding, which no dis- cussion can shake, and no discussion can strengthe: He who does not feel its truth possesses a mental o} ganization so diiferent from mine, that the sooner wo separate in the field of argumentation, where there is no common ground we can occupy, the better. It is not every vagary of the imagination, nor every ebullition of feeling, nor every impulse of the passions, however honest the motive may be, which can lay claim ‘to the rights of conscience. That great moral faculty is an improving one, and should be improved and in- structed by ail the means within our reach; and he who neglecta that duty will have much to answer for. It is no excuse, by the laws of God or man, that he who, ina state of sanity, commits a crime, believes he was called upon to doit. Certainly, were such # doctrine estab- lished, there would be iittle security for society, for immunity from punishment would be sure to lead to the relaxation of moral perception, an! to the accommo- dation of the conscience to any temptations which might present themslves. Every man is responsible for the use of this endowment, as he is responsible for every other gift which God has bestowed upon him. It is not enough for him to say, in self. exeulpation, I thought! was right, uniess he uses the means of proper culture accord- ing to the opportunity which his condition gives him. ‘The human legislator has the right to separate presump. tuous or unfounded pretensions at war with the just constitution of society, from conscientious dictates pro- RY regulated and operating within their juss sphere. ndoubtedly, here is room for abuse and oppression, as there must Xe, more or less, in ail human institutions, Dut it is inseparable, in the very nature of things, from the ition of the parties—governors and governed. And in very circumstance is found one of the great blessings of free institutions, which neither sacrifice the protec- tion of the community, nor of individuals, but endeavor w preserve the just rights of both, while the constant e other, it is efforts of {i nsible power anlof goveraments, not depending on the will of the people, are to cireumseribe personal freedom, and to rule over the mind, as well as the body. Let not, therefore, Arehbishop Hug’ the right to claim ¢xemption from any and ali laws, from the position that there ar whieh carry with them no moral obi the human lawma. ker has no right to pss. empt fe equally illogi- cal and unreasonable. The true object of human govern- ment is to protect man in a state of society; and in the execution of the duty thus devolved upon them, there must necessarily be various modifiestions of «ystems, ‘operating in different parts of the globe, and mocl lati tude of discretion in their administration. Still, in enquiry into the just rights of these governments—not in to their practical working—it is vain to tell us what they have aussumed to do, for they have assumed to do mach, and have done much, for which there was neiher author: ity nor justificstion. The reference, therefore, to our country, to Connectientand Soueh Carolina, even if the facts bore upon the discussion, would be ely to fur- nish examples of bat levisiation, leaving untouched the uestion of right. ButI deny that religioas worship is ubject of American legislation. There is part of our country, not a solitary nook, from these marble halls where the Kepreseatatives of the American States ‘and people assemble to do the will of their sovercign, to the remotest log cabin upon the ver: je of civiliza- tion, where a man may not fresly and lawfully worship God'unrestrained by any law, local or federal, I make this assertion with necticut, in South Car else, any man may per: Creator without the Punishment. Put +t nected with this sv Jopement in order to p Tam surprised to find have practical a logician and enact bishop Hughes. It is obvi« that in the practical operatio: may arise in which it may be tinatly where jast authority en L he og other questions ia | of ficul’ and usarp obvious, though t termed ? may not be well de It is pedfectiy clear, that no Jeginlature can rightfally touch @ man becau read his Bible, or falls on bis ken other act of worshiy ealthful condition of he who, pretending naistent with 6 led, whether th of hypocritical from hutn just conser Jnid down wi , serking p. y. can claim ! | | } | trate may rightfully interfere, and provide punishments, of jh hichest injustice to deprive them of their goods and privi- leges, either civil or naturs ause every man has ® Jand inalienable right to enjoy full liberty ding to his conseienes, especially in matters that eo to his eternal welfare One of the most extraordinary chapters in the history | of man is filled with examples of rations, each enjoying its hour of succe: to some other passing freak, as unreasonable and shortlived as its predecessors. Sects have existed— exist yet, I believe—which deny the authority of all ‘overnments not administered by themselves. Others have appeared like the Amabaptists of Germany, some three centuries since, who maintaine! that, “ among Christians who bave the precepts of the Gospel to direct, and the spirit of God to guide them, the office of magis trate is unnecessary, and an encroachment on spiritual liberty; that a community ef goods shoul be established, and that a man may marry as many wives a3 he chooses.” ‘And these tenets were not only avowed and proclaimed, | but practically enforced by armies and sieges aud battles, till fanaticism gave way, and governments resumed their usual operations. Even our own country, at this very moment, exhibits a humiliating spectacle m an associa- tion of men degrading the name of Christians by appro- priating it to themselves, and openly professing and ractising doctrines irreconcilable with an orderly con- Rition of ‘society, and which hold out the reward of lust to strengthen the conviction and conversion of its fol- lowers. ‘ccamples of this mental obliquity—monomania very often, for it cannot be doubted that many who embrace such tenets are honest in their allegiance to them—might be multiplied indefinitely, were the task a da g necessary or a profitable one. But it is neither, and these illustrations of the general principles are enough | for my purpose. Now, in all such cases the civil magis- not for acts of religious worship, but for crimes, before which the peace of society would disappear. But, as I have said, between the extreme boundaries there is a debatable land, where doubts may arise, and where just allowance should be made for the imperfection of the human judgment. But this difficulty in the practical application of the general powers of government, which ‘Archbishop Hughes seems to mistake for the principle itself, can have no effect upon our present inquiry, for that ‘relates only to proceedings beyond all question out of the true domain of human governments. The Archbishop, in the further prosecution of his ob- ject remarks, that— ‘ssrumption of Goneral Cassis a fallacy. He the freedom ef religion in this country is = ‘conceded by Protestant liberality to all the inhsbi- tants of the land.” This is aot viloge, whieh ord ‘rotestants common concession Revolutionary cause it suited us, all hor it waite thom or nott ani St ueh weaker thi er are, son this subject will be treated as drivel- Ning ty foreignh ta Or go have a mind to arrange the constitution: ropean States by the power of armies and dis But the United to ridicule if they drag in sueh intercourse with foreign gi 4 T must confess, sir, I am utterly at a loss to conceive how the distinguished writer could so greatly have mis- taken my views, as he has here done. e source of his error is inexplicable to me. All I know is that the error is an obvious one. He says I assume that “the freedom of religion in this country was a boon conceded by Protestant liberality to all the inhabitants of tho land.” I said nthing like this—I assumed nothing like it. I earnestly repudiate the whole position and every syllable of it. Neither the word Protestant nor Catholic is to be found in the whole course of my remarks, aor any other word discriminat- ing between them. So far from considering the freedom of religion as a boon, uired by one sect and granted to others, I considered it o natural, inalienable right, ex- isting independent of governments, and not within the legitimate sphere of their action. That was, and I be- lieve it is, the doctrine of the American people, and I challenge the Archbishop to find in my observations a single remark, justifying this charge. I have just repe- rused them, and can therefore speak with as much cer- tainty a8 correctness. This arrangement in regard to liberty of conscience, (con- tinues the Archbishop.) suited the policy of the country, and was absolutely indispensablo after the Revolutionary war. What is here termed an arrangement is in fact tho recognition of the great claim of religious freedom, and the writer is correct in saying that it suited the policy of the country. Itdid, and it suited the feelings and the inciples of the American people, not only then, but I ope it will suit them in all time to come. It was not a mere temporary arrangemont. It is degraded by such anepithet. It was the ever-enduring establishment of a great principle, destined to Produce the most salutary results throughout the world. Ido not assert that the whole country at once gave in their adhesion to perfect religious toleration. ‘They were prepared for it by their antecedents, and by the profound investigation of the general principles of freedom, both civil and religious, which marked the course of the revolution; and every step was in advance till the glorious consummation, which leaves us nothing more to ask for in regard to this great branch of human rights. Does General Cass mean to bishop) that because it suited us, all other nations must adopt it, whether it suits them or not? As woll might kng- lnnd say that because it suited ber finances to adopt free trade, shat all other nations must do the same. Imust confess my astonishment that the learned and able prelate thus deals with this great principle of reli- gious freedom, reducing it to the level of those questions of mere expediency which may Well be decided one way to-day and snother tomorrow, as the circumstances that control them changefrom time to time. I do not mean to say, that because. the arrangement suited us, there- fore it suits and should be adopted by all other nations. Imean to say, that it euits all nations and all time, as a law of right, implanted by the Divine Lawgiver in the human breast; and whoever violates it, be the guilty party, prince, or people, or Priest, will in vain seek to ayoid the just consequences o! Cnywainsbiee intolerance. The Archbishop then proceeds to say, that— & recognized principle in this country, that evory ixn Aud inde yn has the right’ to adopt its own constitntion and laws. ‘The constitution and laws of & country are but the ‘ate of general principles appli- cable to t we itustion, protection and woltare of omposed. They may nent expression of the (continues the Arch- perm: nce of that State | of commercial treaties, while oth re gate c “*fE{s certainly not to be controverted that the princi- ple here asserted—that independent States havea right to adopt their own constitution and laws—is fully recognized in this country, and, indeed, I suppose, at least theoreti- cally, everywhere else, unleas indeed where the divine n leaves no other right but that of obedience. again bring to the notice of the Archbishop that this investigation does not touch forms of govern- ment, nor their powers as political communities. It has | a much higher aim, and that is to ascertain their moral right to control the consciences of their people, by pre- scribing their mode of faith and the manner in which they shall worship God. With respect to the ‘agurogate of general prineiptes, applicable to the pecullar situation, tection and welfare of citizens,” though I must con- fers my ideas aro much “confused”? as to what this means, yet from my glimmering of it, I have only to say that such considerations are lighter than the small dust of the balance in a moral inquiry as important us this. te or aggregate what principles you may, the great Principle remains inviolable, rising superior to all other considerations—that man has a right to worship God, un- restrained by human laws. There is no situation, pro- tection ner welfaro, which can rightfully interfere with this duty, or rather there is no situation in which it is not the best protection, promoting the greatest welfare of mankind. Astothe « te conscience” of a State, I neither comprehend distinctly its meaning nor its application to the question in controversy. ‘Tho metaphyalcal expres- sion, “ public conscience,” may serve to illastrate or to enforce considerations affecting the conduct of nations, but it can have no proper place ina rigid inquiry into moral duties, for in fact it can have no existence. | It is carrying figurative language to the very verge of mysti- ciam, to employ it thus loosely as an clement in @ search after truth. And this “aggregate conscience of a State”? 1s made up, not of the consciences of those who obey its government und ought to direct it, but of its own constitution and laws, which form the expression of the ‘aggregate of the general principles applicable to the peculiar situation, “protectio m and welfare of its citizens,” That is, in other words, the administration of every government expresses the ag- gregate conscience of the State it rules. Well, this is an easy, if nota satisfactory, way to dispose of this grave question of publie morality. “It comes to this—that the aggregate conscience of France is permanently expressed by its constitution and laws; that ia, at present, by the rule of Louis Napoleon; of Turkey, by the successor of the Prophet; of Russia, by the Czar, and go on to the end of the chapter of governments, good and bad. I said I did not comprehend the application of this doctrine, were it even true, and Ido nol. But so ables controver- sialist ax Archbishop Haghes, did not advance it without some design, and the only bearing I can discover, which it was to have, is tooffset this © segregate conscience’? against the consciences of individuals—this moral faculty of Masaachn: which hus one form, and of Louisiana which has snother—thus giving the right of final judg- ment and control in all cases to this abstract national faculty, and practically justify the most revolting tyran- ny, because the law is the expression of the public con- science, and the public conscience is the foundation of the law. ‘The Archbishop sees in any representations which may have been made by our government to that of Tus- ing the Madiaia ease, not only a kind of na- ement, but a pregnant example, which might be er converted to our injury. As I know nothing ef any such representations, but have reason to believe that uone were made, I have only to say, that | though I should pot have approved of any interference, a the rights of an American citizen were not in qu tion, yet my objection would have originated in othe consiverations, and pot in any fear that by an effort to | check persecution and intolerance, we should lower our character in onr own eyes, or in those of the world. Still less do I fear that the attempt to protect American citizens in the enjoyment or religious worship abroad will expose ux to ridieule or contempt. If it does, I think we ean bear it with due fortitude. As to the national humiliation of requesting the governments of the earth to permit the peaceable citi zens of our own country, while residing in another, to worthip God as freely as they worship him at home, I am not afraid it will injure us in the estimation of the world. | On the contrary, I believe that this manifestation of | follcitude for the religious freedom of Americans will be everywhere applauded as another proof of the devotion | of ffee governments to the rights and welfare of their | le. Nor do | apprehend that what we now ask will fornich @ cause or a pretext for demands upon ourselves | vhich we cenld not grant without danger, nor refuso | No such case can happen. We | ter the applications of all | in relation to the just | pour country. That ts a logiti atation, when made in should ever be willing | {rit of conciliation. Al! beyond that | resent inquiry. the distinguishet p than they pein! rit, and ft s kere rt As to th ie right of friendly remonstrance upon auch a mot be called ia question, lwoking either to | the principle or to the practice of national intercourse. The tendency of modern civilization is to bring the pow- ers of the earth into more direct and immediate contact, | multiplying their points of intercommunication, and iu- creasing their mutual interest in one another. There | are perfect obligations, as they are called, arising out of this intercourse, the fuldilment of which may be peremp- torily demanded, and if neglected, may be justly enforced by war. of call out, and which may bo refused without such serious consequences. Some of these constitute the foundation representations, and to the remedy which these n roduce, without formal conventional arrangements. ons remonstrate with one another, against high tariffs, when they are particularly injurious. We have done it many times, especially in relation to tobac’ the duties upon which operate as an interdict against its introduction into some countries; yet the right to levy such imposts as it pleases, ia one which belongs to ever government, and is exercised by every one. But it is contended that we should violate national comity, if we remonstrate against laws interdicting to American clti- zens the worship of God, not levying duties indeed upon the rights of conscience, but absolutely prohibiting their exercise. Away with snch fastidious distinctions. Many legal rights are surrendered by nations to each other, in order to ameliorate the condition of their res- postive citizens, or to promote the ends of justice. The it d’Aubaine, that relic of barbarism by which a State claims the inheritance of property when the heir is a foreigner, has been abandoned in a number of th treaties we have formed with European powers. Mutu- al obligations have aiso been incurred for the surrender of fugitives from justice, and we have made ourselves parties to this policy. Many other instances exist where the laws of a country have Fors to these reciprocal arrangements. Archbishop Hughes seems to suppose that because the demands in such cases are not founded on perfect obligations, a nation would humiliate itself by proposing arrangements which might be rejected. Not 80. us, speaking upon this subject, touches the very point when he says that “in treaties of commerce between powers of different religions, care taken to fix the rights to be enjoyed reciprocally by the subjects of the two parties with respect to their religion, burials, &e.”” This distinguished jurist sees nothing humiliating in such an arrangement, and of course there can be nothing humiliating in’ the proposition. .He speaks of the very course we La rg a8 one sanctions. 1) the —— of nations. That it has been so for almost two hundred years—how much longer | have not sought to ascertain—is shown by the treaty of Utrecht of 1667, between England and Spain which provided that the Cg es of neither party should be molested nor disturbed for their conscience so long as they gave no public scandal or offence. It is obvious that the framers of this treaty were afflicted with a con- fusion of ideas, and could have been no believers in the Archbishop’s theory of the inviolability of conscience, because if it could not be violated it needed no protec- tion. The protection here provided has relation to exter-. nal action, or it has relation to nothing. Upon this subject of the usage of nations, I prefer the history of their diplomatic intercourse, and the authority of an eminent jurisconsult, to that of the Archbishop. There are extreme theoretical rights, connected with na- tional jurisdiction, which are opposed to the feelings of the world, and must give way to their expulsion. The right to put to death all persons thrown upon the coast of a country, is, perhaps, yet claimed, and at no distant day was exercised by some of the Powers of Eastern Asia. At one time it is said to have been the law of Russia. Tho’ the legitimate consequence of the principle of local sovereignty, yet there is not a civilized nation on the face of the globe which could now submit to this legalized murder of its citizens. It would be frowned down by the indignation of the world, by its power, if need be. And 480, with respect to the right to seize vessels and other property wrecked upon a coast, it is wearing out, pretty much worn out, leaving the pretension, a monument of injustice and cruelty. A change is going on in the prin- ciples of national intercourse, gradual if ‘you please, but sure and irresistible. The harsh relics of dark and bar. barous ages are disappearing, and the influence of liberal governments is extending and expanding itself wherever there is injustice to remove or prejudices to encounter. ‘The Grand Duke of Tuscany is safe for to-day, even if he stands between the American or the English sojourner and his God; but I would not ensure his safety for to- morrow, without heavy premium. The code of public law has not yet quite reached the case; but it is rapidly spreading, and, for one, I hope it Will soon be a ro- cognized principle with the enlightened governments of the world, that if duty and humanity fail to protect the rights of their citizens to free religious worship abroad, that protection shall be rendered by force. But the his- tory of our conventional intercourse with foreign Powers furnishes the best refutation of the arguments of Arch- bishop Hughes, as well as the best rebuke to this charge, that the assertion of their great ; peinelple is no better than national ‘‘drivelling, ” and “that it will expose us to ridicule if we drag in such a question into our diplo- matic intercourse with foreign Powers.’’ As early as 1785, two years only after the acknowledgement of our independence, entire freedom of worship was censecra- ted in a treaty with Prussia in these memorable words :— ‘The most perfect freedom of conscience and of worship is granted to the citizens or subjects of either party within the jurisdiction of the other, without being liable to moles. tation in that respect, for any cause other than an insult to the religion of others. Moreover, when the sabjects or citizens of one party shall dic within th of the other, their bodios shall be buriod in t ing crounds, or other decent and suitable pla be protected from violation or disturbs: There, sir, is “ drivelling”? to seme purpose. And who were the ‘“drivellers’’ that exposed a young nation to ridicule by “dragging such # question into our diplo- matic intercourse with foreign goverments?”? They were Jobn Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jeiler- on. They signed this treaty. They stood prominoxily forward in “ ¢rivelling”’ their country into indopen- dence, and no less prominently forward in “ drivelling” her into the assertion and maintenance of this groat and glorions principle of entire religious freedom. We vo not want a letter changed in this noble tribute to the rights of conscience. ‘Time cannot impair it, and I hope it will be the model kept in view till the groat end is consummated. So far is the Edalrmgs cast upon these efforts, that they expose us to ridicule from being justi- fied by facts, that there are in our diplomatic archives some fourteen or fifteen treaties, if not more, existing or expired, with foreign powers, and several of these powers Catholic, recognizing this principle of intervention, and providing for the enjoyment of liberty of conscience and of religious worship, some with and without limitation, butall bearing testimony to its value by making it the subject of conventional arrangement—Archbishop Hughes to the eontrary, notwithstanding. But some of these conventions are too rpstrictive, per- haps equivocal, and leave room for relly and thus other and more liberal provisions become ne cessary, even in several countries which have taken th first step in the cause of toleration towards foreigners; and there are other countries which have not yet entered into it, and some within whose jurigdiction the accidents of life may carry large numbers of our fellow-citizens, and where intolerance sits like an incubus upon the moral energies, forbidding with jealous exclusion the ex- ercize of every form of religion but the dominant one. ‘And thus our people wish for protection in the enjoy- ment of this right. Aye, and it will be done too. It is only a question of time, and by a firm course of action we con make that time a short one. We must prove to these States, whether Catholic or Protestant, thus lag- ging in the rear of true religion, that we are in earnest, and itis for that reason that this national demonstra. tion, shown by the petitions we receive, and fortified by a decided expression of the views of the American Con- gress, is important, and eannot fail to be useful. As to the power of the Executive to make representations for this object there can be no doubt, and there little that he is well disposed to exercise it. But he wants th moral support of the country to aid his efforts, and that ought to be given to him. The effect of these demonstra- tions of the views of the representative body of the coun- try, in questions of great national importance, are well stated in the London Times of April 5, 1345, a8 they are well understood by the able Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the House of Representatives, who recently remarked that it was the duty of Congress to support the President in graven conjunctions of our foreign affairs. The American packet, tho Caledonia, says the Timer, which bss been detained until this morning, will oxery oat the distinct and emphatic declarations of the British gov: ernment on the subject of the Urezon territory, which a received last night, with the strong and unanimous catia tion of both houses of Parliament. When the interests and and ‘erervation of the domin- here f# no eqnivoestion in of the government to foreign powers, aad no semblance of weaknons or hesitation in any political party. Add to the above the rights of American citizens, and then let us go and do likewise. How he, who ledges the duty of the government to extend pr to our expatrinted citizens, sent by the accidents of life to foreign countries in questions relating to person and property, can deny the right tointertere by remonstranoe, even in ‘eases of religious expres ion, a8 1 do not ander: stand, T shail not attempt to explain, Modern diplomacy is filled with instances of interposi tion upon almost every subject, froely made ani kindly received. Strange indeed, but so it is, that maoy among vs, in publi¢ and in private life, seem to have a nervous repugnance to such action on the part of the government, conjuring up a thousand chimeras drie against its exer- cise. To seek to protect great principles is, by some kind of political alchemy, transmuted into an entangling alli ance and an artificial tie, against whieh we were ware! by the patriarchs of our political faith. spirit as this we .can obtain and retain that position in the world, and that relation to the principles end pro- gress of human freedom, that every true-hearted Am«: can desires bis country to oceupy, and knows ehe can cupy, if the counsels of timidity do not take the place of tirm and decisive action. That would be miserab| manship indeed, which, rejecting the glorious mission apparently assigned to us, (I like the word, whatever unts its use has provoked,) should seek to shut us op n & kind of Chinese isolation, afraid to take a single st lest we should encounter old and illiberal prejudices, which, thank God, however, are fast wearing away, aw give offence to some government, which is at least tive centuries behind its time. states. It would be hard to satisfy me, that firm remonstrances, | in a kind spirit, on this subject of religions freedom, will be permanently unsuccessful. I do not believe a word of this. Since I have been upon the theatre of action, the progress of human opinion has wrought more changes in the physical and moral condition of society, than were witnessed for ages preceding thatera. No man can set bounds to this mighty agent, and I bless Gol, that though [em fall of years, fam full of hope, looking for- ward with confidence to other and yet mightier triumphs, more glorious than those of the battle field, and which will go far to reclaim the human family from pol and religious thraldom, from intellectual ignorance, from physical want, Governments capnot now dc of darkness darkly. Their inmost rece: by the light of public information. A their designs are laid open to the There are no veiled prophets now, t power iron whose names and whose offences are ‘There is, indeed, no want of tyranny openly. No nation can isolate < mon observation of mankind. The world is wate! judging, and approving ore condemning, as the course of public measures is or unjust. No people can withdraw therarelves from this great scrotiny. No stem of ¢ boundaries to the potiem ean elose its ¢ work itis now doing. And eof this ger tvation and animadve m. 1 fear no ha while the good it brings i palpable, incre’ (ined to extend and expand with the progress of know ein the exe But there are other demands, involving matters | comity, of interest or of policy, which circumstances | 8 are confined to | gious passion, | Itis by no sach | lodge. Itis all idle to talk of the abstract right of gov- ernments to rule as they please within their own domin jong, and to “adopt their own constitution and laws.” It is a truism indeed, which no one questions, abuse the power too often is. it beyond this right there is another equally unquestionable, and that isthe right of the creat community of the world to set in judgment on | the conduet of its various members, of public opinion and of a free 1 the governments of the earth to ren: | another in proper spirit, where their own people | concerned, even when the subject falls within the pale of 1, rather than of nationallaw. I have no such shop Hughes manifesta, lest re proposed should produce re | torts, the more unacceptable because unanswerable. Fi my part, [ know noawkward questions whieh the Gran Duke of Tuscan ther potentate, inthe interest r chere, could ask the execative “about the liberty of conscience in this country,” which he would be “ puzzled to answer,”” and “+ whether liberty of conscience ix recognized a# unlimited in the United States,’ &e. But to place, as Archbishop Hughes does, the penal laws against us Worship and the prosecu- tions to which they give rise in the same category, as sets resulting from popular ebullition prohibited by the laws, or that kind of ‘social and political intolerance’? which makes itself felt by exclusive intercourse, is to run a parallel between objects as different in their princi- ples as in their consequences. ‘Is there any practical difference,”? these are the words which are put into the mouth of the Tuscan ruler in the dialogue to which I have alluded with our government, for the purpose of crimination or of recrimination, I do not exactly com- prehend which, perhaps both—‘'Is thore any practical difference between the social intolerauce which prevails in your country, where there are so many religions, and the legal intolerance of our dominions, where there is but one?” The Archbishop, like a dexterous dialecti- cian, by the insertion of one little word ‘ practical,” changes the whole bearing of the discussion. ‘This turns upon principle, upon the relative rights of governments and of the communities subjected to them, and not at all upon social usages, whether the result of pro- priety or of prejudice. He who confines his business or bis intercourse to members of his own faith, ‘who drives away poor servants because thoy will not, aguinat their conscience, join the domestic religion ‘of State’’—(Quere: What mean these words domestic reli- gion of State’)—which their fancy has made exclusive ,”’ or “who disinherits his own offspring for no other cause except that of practising their own religion,’ deservos the contempt and reprobation of every right.minied man. It is an abuse of terms to call the motives that govern him religious convictions. They aro blind and bitter and wicked prejudices, nowhere taught in the gos- pel of Jesus. But they belong to that class of social duties beyond the reach of positive laws, and must be left to their own consequences. Anattempt to control them would lead to endless and inextricable difficulties. For myself, sir, | hove not the least intention of under- taking the task’ of pointing out the errors into which Archbishop Hughes has fallen in relation to this topic; desire, however, to say, that I do not doubt but t acts of social intolerance ike those he alludes to and justly consures, may have occurred in this country, but I trust and believe they are rare, and I know thoy aro not chargeable to any particular denomination, but may happen as well to members of the Catholic faith as to those of the various sects of Protestants; and I know still more, that they are less likely to bappen in thi country than in any other under heaven, from the very nature of our social condition and of our political organ- ization, which aro hostile to sectarian prejudices, and insure their being visited by public condemnation. But to the qucstion to be put by Grand Ducal lips, whether there is any practical difference between our social intolerance and the legal intolerance of other countries, I answer yes—all the difference in the world —as woll theoretical ag practical. If the law is intole- * rant, society becomes necessarily intolerant also, though the converse of the proposition would be a logical here- ay. The government that reduces religion to its, will makes the worship of God the subject of legal regula- tion—whatever may be the conviction of those uuder its authority. The government which assumes that religion is a matter between man and his Creator, and avoids all interferenco with it, leaves the human conscience free —and the noblest attribute of our nature—to do its own work. The arm of secular power is not interposed to direct, to restrain, and to punish, as it is where rulers resumptuously undertake to substitute their owa will For the will of God. Every man in a country of religious freedom has tbe samo rights and immunities as every other, and that is all that can justly bo demanded of civil governments. But the proscription of social intolerance is’ game at which oll may play. Unroason- able prejudices may be encounterel by prejulices equally unreasonable, and one sect can mect another in this unworthy contest. But it is a contest, which can nowhere endure for any length of time, nor be felt to any considerable extent, where the government preserves neutral position, and protects each from the actual in- terference of a!l. If a Protestant will not have a Catholic servant, nor a Catholic a Protestant one, nora servant a master whose faith differs from his own, each can suit himself by seeking such as may please him in the mem- ders of his own denomination, and this is practically far better than that one of thexe sects should be the do- minunt one, judging not only for itself, but for all others, and enjoying its freedom at their expense; prosoribiang all, not only by social intolerance, but by legal power and by terrible punishments. So much for this question, 80 Set put. Archbishop Hughes, in the appeal he makes from our professions to our practice, in continuation of the Tuscan rebuke to be administered to our government, remarks, that ‘ other violations of liberty of conscience in dif- ferent paris of the country, are by no means rar in our history,” and he proceeds, in proof of this assertion, to refer to the burning’ of religious buildings in Philadelphia, which I have already introduced in con- nection with another branch of this inquiry, as he had Just before referred to the lamentable destruction of « convent‘in Charlestown, Massachusetss. Mr. President, these instances of lawless violence have no legitimate place in this inquiry, They are introduced by way of off- set against the Madiai persecution, and to Warn ‘us that we are not 0 quietless as to find ourselves justified in throwing the first stone. It is contended that the Madiai were punished for possessing and reading the Bibl While Archbishop Hughes indignantly denies this charge, he brings against our character and institutions this ac cusation, as one of equal or greater intolerance, which uhould foreclose us from complaint or animadversion.. I am, indeed, amazed at this reference for any such pur- pose, That cause must be weak, indeed, which needs support like this. The Archbishop has left unnoticed, if not unheeded, the real principles, which separate these American and dialian acts of intolerance by a vast dis- | tance, and which render our country responsible, as its share of reproach, for deeds of violon inst the law, | but punishment by the law, while the share of the other is the responsibility of bad laws, unjustly alministered, and striking et the very foundation of religious freedom. All people are more or less accountable for the prevalence of crime among them, but this is a yery different ac- | countability from that which attaches to the commission of great moral offences, like the oppression of the haman conscience, through the instrumentality of the law. The fanatical riots in London, in 1/80, were a reproach to the English character, nob because they were sanctfhned by | the government, Dut because the government had uot the energy or the power to prevent them. The attrocious | destruction of religious edifices in our own country, no | one can justify—not eyon palliate; but they are deeds | which bring no other public responsibility with them than what attaches to negligent or feeble a \ministration. The actors in them exposed themselves to heavy punish- ment, and I presume some of them, at least, met it, though I have not izquired into the fact. Bat certain it is, the courts were open to ample power, and, I doubt not, disposition, to visit these oflences with the full severity of the law. As to the failure to make compensation for the ‘scenes at Charlestown, of which the Archbishop complains, I must confess I have ever wished the most ample remuneration | had been provided by the Legislature of the state. think the circumstances were of a nature to render this, not an act of justice merely, but of feeling and of wis- dom. But stili, as a question of naked right, it mast reat | upon the general Jaws of the State, and not upom any | peculiarity in the transaction itself. If those laws pro- vide for making good, at the public expense, losses in- | carred by acts of violence, then the claim for pecuniary satisfaction could not have been resisted. I take it that no pelitical community is under any obligation to make compensation for injuries resulting trom lawless violence. Whether they will do so in any case, and if so, in what case, are practical questions for municipal determina- tion. It is obvious they cannot do it in all cases. Notwithstanding the evident conviction in the mind of Archbishop Hughes that the representations made to the | Tuscan government on the subject of the persecution of | the Mndiat family would be barren of any useful result, fortitied, as he must have considered his position, by the considerations presented in the official dialogue prepared by him—notwithstanding all this, the doors of their sou house have been thrown open, and those y an unjust law have been re from its ponalties. rejoice at this proof of the efficacy of that gre ing and avenging power, public opi such a bold experitent upon the f is m good s the great contest ad, if not promis the future 4 the liberal governs fi inertly, in present 0 I uce, wry of beiter things for will not fail, uni fail in their ¢ | ing the progr deeds are pinions by re Jy to be thas oc ham, to give more confiden tlorence has been the theatre of riments upon the forbearance of th pulation, and upon the opinion of the world, by the in- carcoration of an English female. The London Times, i a scathing article headed ‘* What are the Kings about reviews the em of many of the Europedn stve- reigns; and » humilin e it is of folly ant im hecility, where it is not m chronicle of so That journal Woks to the day when even pr will uy — Come what may, the world onn do withowt thom. | qennot he woree than that halfadozen taen eo Emrope up to fire and sword for the satiefa ows, sel ah passions, If some progressionist—and I mean by that well epithet some man who advances wisely, bat no | with the spirit of the age—had said as macl body, he would have stood a good chance te rea use of a Misa @ expe n al tion of ngs noune all manner of hard naine est of whi sd have been @ noisy dema | not in Enrope alone that the prestige of | the eyes and obseures the jadm: | itself shove the fr | is one of those’ comin | before,”’ thus holding up to public ecorn aud re | by auch a journal, existing abuses, and tra adical vice of 5 bandoved ap nh Halian Bible f mercy th him sing both equally ce Another ace © wrath of a pat ise and just law, entine, not t! er atton aad macina. ond bi ‘ lue has the best evidence of merit in the general and conti- nued approbation of mankind.’? Youth and riper age will equally bear testimony, a8 well to the fascination ax the virtuous tenteney of this effoi geains What the Tuscan Soluns diseovered 1s to the State in this old and inverestin ow not Ishall say not. It may be that the ve that he might be ae and shat up in Doubting Ca what began weakly ended wisely farce, Exper it bas not tang upon the Arno to avoid errors, has taught the beat moc netion toa pers wh . Teommend probably the princips deniuement to Archbishop Hughes; act of the Grand Duke, which seta at naught his own barbarous laws, notwithstanding the virtuous inflexibility assumed for him in this republican land. His next step should be to repeal ensetn which it is disreputable to retain and dangerous to enforce ‘The tenacity with which antiquated prejudices are ad hered to, in this day of public knowledge, is among the most extraordinary clrcumstances with whieh society finds itself surrounded. Feeble and contemptible gov- ernments, having lost or never having acquired the sub stance, seem desirous to preserve the semblance of vir tue, or connecting the stability of existing political insti- tutions and their abuses with the subjugation of the hu- man consc'ence and intellect, hold on to these shackles as the shipwrecked mariner clings to the plank that up- holds him in his hour of despair. It is difficult to re- strain within proper limits the expression of that indig- nation which such insane despotism excites in every liberal breast. The war against the living is continued against the dead, and when the soul has fled beyond the reach of human tyranny, the body ia refused a place of sepulture, and the surviving friends are prohibited the observance of those solemnities which are dictated by the instincts of our nature, and by the spirit of the gos- pel,and which, while they area solace to the bereft, make the lesson of mortality to them and to others more prosecution, snd with | 1! impressive and enduring. The cold earth warmed once by a living spirit, is unworthy of a last resting place, even under the clod of the valley, because it adored God, not in the forms prescribed by a domiaant religion, butin the manner dictated by its own sense of duty. The govern- ment of Spain stands prominently forward in this unholy warfare; and I learn from a communication | havo seen from the highest American authority in that country, that there are great difficulties and obstacles in the way of obtaining permission for a cemetery, and that ‘ without such special permission, restricted as it is with most intolerant provisions, it is impossible for a Proves tant to enjoy the benfits of local interment. or have performed over his remains even the legal right of Chris- tian burial anywhere in this kingdom’? of Spain, Various documents have been reeently published by the British government casting a lurid light upon Spanish intoler ance, which ought to make the name of the government of Spaina byeWord and reproach aoong the nations of the earth. ‘The treaty of Utrecht, of 1667, secured the proper rights of sepulture to British subjects dying in that country; but Spr obstinacy and bigotry are difficult to overcome, and it is but recently that any ef- forts to © procures compliance with this stipulation have | promised the least success. It appears that the British Ambassador, in answer to his repeated applications, was informed, afew months sinee, by the Spanish Secretary of State, that the ‘Queen, my Sovereign,” has at length granted permission for the construction of a cemotery near Madrid for British Protestant subjects who may dic in that city; but with characteristic bigotry aa intole- rance, this long delayed act of humanity has been dis- figured with conditions that no man can read without contempt and disgust:— No churoh or chapel, (sayg tho Spanish Justinian.) or any other sign of a temple or of pablic or ato worship, will be allowed to be built in the aforosaid cemetery. All swhich can eive aay indication of the performanco of any divine se noover, are prohibited, In the con- veyance of d to the ground, any sort of pomp or publicity is prohibited. It ia dificult to read this declaration of war against } the feelings of the living, and the last duties which be- long to the dead, andr-alize that it is sent forth to shock the moral sense of mankind in this nineteenth centary of the Christian ers, and in this period of general know- ledge, avowing, as Lord Palmerston well said, ‘‘principles of action belonging to an age which has long since gone by And whenco comes this missive, which almost bids the dead to bury the dead? From’ corrupt court and an effete government; and I speak with due reflec- tion when I say this. A characteristic fact is stated ina late number of the London Times, upon i 8 editorial re- , sponsibility, which, painfully disgusting as itis, should | nevertheless be held up to universal reprobatioa, brand- of Budhe » Lif recent accounts are to be credited, the sable gush E of Hayti, has come oat annals re n Captain from among port, that in a conversation with an Aimoric wuo bad been exposédto some difficulty in conseqaenoe of copies of the Bible baying been found on board of bis weasel, he aaid: “I shalbbe happy to have oa the island ne much of that reading matter as you cau bring, and if any person interferes with you, let me know.’ Tis isso trae to reason and revelation, that I am willing to believe it true to fact. Well done for the Ethiopian, whocan change his heart, though not his skin ‘And as might well be expected, the metropolitan exam- ish colonies, and a letter ud Fairebild, of New York, has papers, communicating & T Toon hosnllipting, $0 be- t to. the bost feelings of ve made inguiry of Doctor ned from him that the writer nd reliable man,’? ple is followed y dedon, Lam net ir—it would be no pleasant tash-—I content myself with a very general reference te it—eufiicient, however, for a just appreciation of the state of matiers in Cuba, connected with this subject. It seemns that the wife of a Protestant American citizen died wear Matanzas, beseechii or husband, almost witha her last breath, to haye ber ns taken back to her native conntry, and not left in ti rriole place, where alone, foreigners not Roman Catholics, can be buried in that part of the island. She had learne’ the condition of this mound of corruption, this Cuban golgotha, for it ia a fetid mags, enclosed with brick walls and raised by ae- cumulated deposits to a hei 0 or fifteen feet above the ground, and the i dissolution, strew its surface, bleaching, decaying, de- composing, not less offensive to the sen moral feelings. Other details are given, which are too painful for recapituiation. Well might a delicate and dying female shrink with horror from the idea of sleep- ing the sleep of death, surrounded with these exhumed relics of mortality, and sooa to become part of them. To bury elsewhere, even in private ground, is stated to be punishable with a fine of $2,000. Why, God only knows —it is hard for man to conjecture. ‘To obtain permis- sion to send the dead body from the island, would have cost from fifteen hundred to two thousand dollara, even if the application were successful. But scrious doubts were entertained by the consul, founded, I sup- pose, upon his knowledge of the course of the govern- ment officials—not whether the money would be accepted. —that was taken for granted—b: r impediments would not be thrown in the way, lew to still fur. ther extortions, which would ject. To send’ the remains ai would have exposed the parties to a five years imprisonment, and the ‘The afflicted husband encountered the » and the of his wife now rests in this land of savety, henceforth te be undisturbed till disturbed by the trumpet of the arch- angel. Feeble, indeed, would be any commentary upom this terrible picture of impious tyranny. I shall attempé none. It is understood that the island, somehow ee other, contributes large resources to the necessities and the pleasure of Queen Chriatina, A custom-house tariff upon the exportation of a human body, for the purpose of interment at home, is new in fiscal science. Ita origim is worthy of its application. And another kingdom upon the Iberian Peninsula, not content with its fall from the glorious days of De Gama and of Camoeas, nor satisfied to be shielded from the contempt of the world by that insiguificance which im- becility and ignorance are sure to produce in the career of nations, seeks distinction, not merely by the perpeta- ation of existing abuses—that there is some excuse foe in the moral constitution of human nature—but by their formal incorporatien into a new code of criminal law. So late as the 10th of December, 1852, the government of Portugal decreed that ‘‘the celebrating of public acts of Worship, not that of the Catholic religion, should be punishable with imprisonment from one to three years and to a fine proportioned to the income of the offender.’> A reigning family, saved by Protestant arms, thus testi- fies by its acts how little worthy it was of the efforts that sent it back to misgovern a country which owes much to the bounty of nature, but whose prosperity is marred by the presumption and intolerance and rance of man. And the humble American Chris who seeks to worship the God of his fathersin this land of iron religious despotism, is seized by the law and shut up for years, with thieves and robbers, guilty of am equalerime in this system of Portuguese juriaprudence. Some of the republics upon this continent, of Spanish origin, seem to feel at liberty to follow the example set them ‘by the parent country, and to play the religious tyrant with foreign residents coming among them. Ad~ mitted at last into the family of nations, their conduct in becoming the slaves of blind and bittter prejudices: pees they have much to learn before they are fitted for the enjoyment of rational liberty. ingas it does witha red hot iron, the occupants of high places, ruling by divine right and by the grace of Goi, (by the wrath of God rather,) and taking into their own | custody the faith of tlie people in life, and their mortal remaina in death. ‘If we step acroas the Pyrenées,”? | says this great European censor, ‘‘we tind the most im- | posta point’ connected with royalty at Madrid to be | contained in the announcement, which was published in | our foreign correspondence on’ Tuesday: Negotiations | are on foot to induce the father of the- reigning “favor- | ite” to accept the embassy to Vienna, with the additional gratuity of three millions of reals, (thirty thousand | pounds,) nearly $150,000, to the favorite himself, to | accompany hia worthy parent. A near relation of an in- | fluential member of the cabinet is spoken of as likely to | be the new ‘favorite.’ Here is news for Europe. All this is sufficiently intelligible without being rendered | into more downright English, though indeed the lan- guage could not be as plain as the conduct it hoids up to scorn, Without the use of expressions fitted for the or pics itexposes and denounces, than for the hails of legis- tion. The Messalina of ancient days was but the pro- totype of some royal perso in our own times, and the coarse but characteristic trait touched by the Roman satirist, Juvenal, proves itself as true to human nature now—to libidinous human nature, indeed—as it was when applied to the wife of one of the successors of Augustus— “Et laseata viris, necdum satiata, recessit.’? from universal obloqury. There ia not a well informed man in Europe conversant with the past history of loyal courts, who does not know the contempt for the proprie- ties and decencies of life which is exhibited in the very highest piace in Madrid, oceupied by one who guides ani | guards the consciences of the nations for some {nacrutable purpose, subjected to her authority by a wise Providence. | ‘Well has it been said that God sometimes shows his con- tempt for human power by placing it in such hands. And the October number of Blackwood, that concentra- tion of tory and high monarchical principles, beara its testimony—and from its predictions—that testimony is sive, to the sad state of morala among the governing class in Spain, and to the causes which have led to it. | “The gross irregularities of Isabella,” saya that journal, | “are at this moment as notorious in her capital and throughout Spain, as any thing of the kind can possibly be.” “When such bright examples are set by royal per- sonages, it is truly wonderful that any morality or honesty remains in Spain. The quantity is not large, and it must not be sought among the statesmen of the country.” | And? yet with these claims to the detestation of ‘the world, rulers thus branded with infamy, takes into their keeping the pure religion of the Saviour, and make their own professions—principles they have none—the stand- ard of true faith, visiting with severe punishmeut all who vary from it in doctrine or in discipline, Few greater curses can befall a nation than such an open disregard of the precepts of the Creator and of the opinions of mankind, by those occupying the ighest stations, whether hereditary or elective. The disease is contagious, and the moral leprosy, more loath- | some than'that of the body, extends its ravages through | the whole country, till checked by one of thore national punishments by which, sooner or later, national sins are sure to be visited. But, sir, 1am happy to believe that scenes like those of Madrid, mark the exception and not the characteristics of European courta, at this day. Cor: tainly there are signal examples of the most honoratle and trreproachabie cenduct in the honseholds of sove- reigns, and the present reigning family of England and the late one of France deserve universal commendation | for their strict regard to the proprieties of their position, | as well as to the moral duties of life. ‘his conduct is not only a just Damage to virtue, but a powerful eoaju- tor in its labor and success. ‘if Archbishop Hughes would devote his strong intellect to the preparation of a second dialogue, holding up to publie scorn and repre hension these scenes of royal licentiousness, he would render a much more essential service to the cause of virtue than by the coiloquies he has farnished us, and by which he seeks to prove our participation in intoler- rance, if not asa justilication, at any rate as a bar to our judging and reprowing the intolerance of otnera, ‘The British Ambassa Madrid indulges in some natural expressions of in ation in nis report to the State for Fo Affairs, at this contempti of narrow big well reproved by g the Spx Minister whether his tox peeted t \ body is to be “smuggled”? to ite last | home, and “without its being known that itisa dead mant’” i} But afterall, the Englishman finds a grave, for here is a decree which allows him one into which, however, his friends must cast him as the beasts Ghat perish; but the American, to whom the ordinary mis! | tune of death is not enough, but to which ia added mirfortune of its advent « rid. where ix his be find repose? Is it to commenc having terminated those in } until rome friend the stranger, an Fer “a private garden where it car a place of deposit, which has som: offered, cannot ulweys be expected which re hard to wring from p | ruch ap ly with ite ng since furnirhe reigners not can rend the fe thin subject, would be as éifti suppress: Until its wanderings in death, n them to continu found to re t aecretly’ humanely are gifts e benevolence in oan near to sup- sach as not rment for fy Who made upon tion which j would to revaning of Pro- testants © ight to the sea hoard, atte rembling friends, aud deposit ef in an. ht position in holes, wit cals more cetemovy than would have beon ed to the | Beasts of the field, | ‘The mort r from t an extrac quoting question of th he roys nex de la i Spain. ere question of ¢ y tried and equally tovarih and das: who may die there. athe tight Well doae for tu er ma for all followers \ Since Philip the Fifth croesed the Pyrenéos, it would be ‘ dificult to point out a single noble deed or one genero sentiment to redeem the Spanish branch of the Bourbons In Valparaiso, we are told that Protestant worship is | “‘connived at,” any religion but the dominant one being constitutionally prohibited; but that recently, the party of exclusion has gained ground, and there is reason to fear that the little freedom now allowed will become less. At Santiago, the capital of Chili, the foreigner has not even the ‘‘connivance’’ of the authorities in the per- formance of his religious duties, but must worship at the established church, or not worship at all. And it ie still further stated upoa the most respectable authority, that the writer had just learned from the American Cousul at Talcahusno, that among other like acts, the local authorities had refused perinission to bury the dead body of an infant child, son of the captain of an Ame- rican vessel, and that the body was, of necessity, taken to sea and put overboard. A grave was found which mocka the strength of man, but will hold its trast as safely, and render it up as faithfully at the sum of the great congregation of the living and the dead, as the statliest mausoleum ever constructed by humam power for human pride. And I have seen an official report in which it is stated that in answer to the earnest representstions made to the curate for hia co-operation in order to procure permission | for the burial of this infant child, he refused, sayi | that “i it were buried her waa fothing to tit from being dug up, as it waa no better than the carcass of a dog or cat; it not having been baptized.’’ How dif- ferent is this revolting sentiment from the words of him who — poet = Sa forbid them not to come unto me: for ofsuch kingdom of Heaven!” They incarnate Saviour looked with LiniSens re infant inne- cence. Man, presumptuor speaking in his name, de~ grades the image of God to beasts around us, unless saved by an external rite administered in conlornlty with the tenets of a particular church. And in still further illustration of the practical effect of this exclusion of Protestants in’ some Catholic coun- tries, from the rites of burial, another fact fs well worth public attention. In 1851, an Americana Mr. W. (his name is given in full in the official was at the point of death at Sant nd such was anxiety for Christian interment, that one of his friends called upon the American Minister for his opinion whe- ther it would not be proper that he should makea pro- fession of Catholicism as the only means of securing his final deposit in the public burying ground. Notwith- standing the advice of the Minister, the ceremony of re- cantation was performed in extremis, and the dying man, by this nominal change of faith, bequeathed his body to a consecrated place of sepulchre. It seems, also, that Chilian presumption seeks to ai- rect the education of youth, as well as tocontrol the conscience of mature age, by giving th sion of all institutions ’ for teach i the education of foreigners, to the ‘eo of the established religion. Whether this effort will succeed, depends perhaps upon the firmness of the governments whose citizene have a temporary residence in Chill. L have aceidentally fallen upon these facts, without searching for them. But itis proper that such occur- rences, wherever they may happen, should be known, ae their knowledge is essential to a j preciatiop of the duty a even for just ay condition of American citizens abroad, and of of the government to use its exertions to redeem theme from this tyranny over mind and body. It is difficult to deal bccn A with this presumptuous oppression, or charitably with those who exercise or extenuate it. And I will not doubt but that the members of the Catholie Chureh in this country will condemn as severely as their Protestant brethren this insane warfare upon the dearest rights of human nature. It is no part of trae ra whether Catholic or Protestant—it is sheer stolid bigotry. ‘There are Catholic nations in Europe—France for exam- le, and I believe Belgium—and perhaps others, aa guilt jess of this vile persecution of the living and the dead, aa is our country. While they are faithful to their owm crevd, they are tolerant to that of others, How far abuses like these I have referred to in Chili may exist in the other republics south of us, I do not know. There is no reason to believe, however, that they are wholly exempt from the spirit, nor from the practice of persecution. And what a speetacle is here presented! Ameri in infancy, are deprived of the means of education; im mature age, of the liberty of religious worship; and im death, of a depository of the image of the Creator, after the guiding spirit has left ita tenement of clay. But, sir, Protestant as well as Catholic countries are exposed to the reproach of this kind of legislation over the eonseiences of man. Intolerance belongs to no one sect, nor creed, nor country. It takes its rise in the weakness of our nature, and triamphs over the dictates of reason and revelation. Protestant Sweden has attain- unenviable distinction in this unholy warfare, and egisiature has passed an act of self styled tolera- but of real intolerance, difficult to be accounted for mntry possessed of mach poner information and is Swediah law pro. cign residents rehool houses por other % ther large lice, they may be duly wal ‘ba ceremonies. nswal among foreign religi den, &o. That he my ve ¥ ns converted from the religionjof the State shali be puniehed And recent intelligence from Sweden makes known that this law is no dead eer at that the spirit of im~ tolerance, which prompted f e ition ecu tion, if keen: insti- against » numer of females for ime of tting the Latheran and fornales te ‘ Chareh. will follow, to. the converts 0 have atos oF tubit crlflinichoe? Whe tity and nation await the government ané’people thus ea- ng persecution ag a part of their political system. tabi And Norway, and Mechlenburg, and Saxony, and iD le others, all Protestant States, have also suilied their no pleasure in the enumeration of these deods of 4 presumption in any State, nor have [ more pain poring them in a Protestant than in a Catholic State, ° to me wher I earnestly i code everywhere i impious ) ond that man bo.left as free as Goi cre jim, to worship Wh sect becomes ntifal Maker », from the ver: me & perseouting on » combinendo, freely Engl translated, was a writ to burn any one whio differed in h writ de her bat truly hi bed tho ruling power for the time lod the offenders, “toxehera, ary to tho blessed Yptermina- And it war mo barten claim, Jyment and exeeation in matters rotig 4s views fron or as an ol of society where persons of va- s, and With rancorous prejudices, may confine ations and their business to the members of persuasion—a state of things, how¢yer repte rious their their own