The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-03-01 00:00:00

/eadistiouisitied, feign the excluding statutes ; 414 et
loch ass his OstsentOikigeNilY appeared Cr"' what
flowed ; tied a foorgptitator on the Learuet,l
!fudge's work bad so tit4efiltond it also, as stmeas-
N by • note on theipure.ige. The Right non.
Gentleman had proceeded to trace through along
riod of history, and had declared that the prilici.
de of exclusion was alien to the Constitution.
' e had referred to periods before the Reformation
well as since, but to all balances drawn from
Isf.the sulqrct was tile same. He would procemits
Lo consider the state of the law, and notwitlistintisk,'
ng the authority of the Right Honourable Gee%
an, he roust assert that the condition of the Rol/
palm Catholic had been coeval with the Reformaticiii..
The Act of the Ist Elizabeth required au oathilif
be taken, acknowledging that her Majesty limit
authority in ecclesiastical as well as temporal
e
matters. 'the Act of the sth Elizabeth aibuitied.
"itheipdti tolehl))bc"eibcrrelel°,el":itslitaatojbsgeftedsifitct°i7eisridomatildhsasettti
a‘le'teßrr‘iparset.edestlii)i(rg.Htiniwie'enlititwioniosit:'i'ot:til d'holeetixti assert,teltleuet6nidtweletoilltrainaliidetit
se
an Cat holier from office. Passing the reign
Charles 11. and James IL he would come
t once to the time of the Revolution, fie
ust apologise to the House but the detail; he
iscw.
suld only repent what he had before urged, and
should not have felt justified in offering is, only
, .„.i. was the hist discussion' on the subject in
the..pstsent Parliament. The Right Hon. Gentle.
sums contended there was a clear distinctiou be-
tween toleration and power, and an equally clear
distinction between laws to impose penalties on a
man for his religion and those which exclude fiorn
office. At the Revolution it was not admitted that
exclusion front office branded a matt, as neither at
that tune was the alternative of admission to office
we extermination of our religion then imposed. He
,hmliaever argued that any irrevocable principle was
sanctioned at the Revolution, which made it im-
-possible to admit the Roman Catholic to the privi-
leers which were now claimed. Had the Bill of
rs
Rightsitself declared for such exclusion, be should,
as a Member of the present Legislature, dechue be-
ing bound by that authority. When he had re-
ferred to the period of the Revolution, it was to be
. satisfied that, in acting on the principle of exclu-
sion, he had acted constitutionally. He had heard
in that House last week, an eloquent and just
anathema pronounced against those who appealed
to King William, es an authority for intole-
rance. Agreeing as he did in the eulogium which
was then prouoisuced on King William, lie should,
with the permission of the House, read to them
the opinion of King William, given when he
was Prince of Orange, at the time that the
strongest inducements were held out to him to
give his sanction to the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts. The letter was written in 1687 by
the Grand Pensionary, sud addressed to Mr. Steward.
He called upon die House to observe the distinc-
tion which was drawn between penal laws and
laws excluding from office. The Right Hon.
Geutleman then proceeded to read a passage from
the letter to which he had alluded, expressive of
the Prince of Orange's " willingness to consent to
the repeal of three laws which inflicted any punish-
ment upon persons for professing the Catholic
Religion, hot that he could not agree to the re.
peal of the Corporation or Test Laws, as these could
not be said to inflict any hardship upon Catholics,
fur they were only regulations as to candidates for
office, requiring them as a qualification to
(lecture before God and mats that they profess the
Protestant religion." Could any distinction, he
would ask, be more clear than this, which had been
laid down by the person whose tolerant spirit had
drawn forth so animated an eulogy from the Right
Hots. Gentleman ? In another place, lie said, " the
Test and Corporation Lie's inflict neither fines nor
punishments, but only exclude Catholics from
office, for the security of the Protestant Establish-
meitt. because if' they were admitted to • partici-
pation of power, they would naturally seek by
every means the advancement of their own par-
ty." This was the 'minion of King William ;
• but there were other opinions on which he placed a
much stronger reliance for encountering the propo-
sition of the Right Honourable Gentleman'. It hind
been said, and very truly, that there could not be
found in the Bill of Rights any mention of the exclu-
riott of Catholics from office. Certainly there could
Hot. But on the other hand, was there to he found in
that Bill any claim of a right to office ? These was,
however, to be found in the introduction to that
Bill, a complaint that James had exercised the
power of dispensing with the disqualifications. It
would be no answer to him to say, that it was the
assumption of a dispensing power that was complain-
ed of. His arguments wits, that it was not neces-
sary afterwards to repeat its the Bill a clause of ex-
clusion of the Catholics from office, a censure his.
nig been recorilidagninst the K tog by that complaint
in the introduction, fur having dispensed with the
operation) of the laws enacting such exclusion. Im-
mediately after the expulsion of James 11. and
the accession of I%'illistn, the Corporation Act was
lensed. In the reign of Queen Anne, an attempt
was made to extend that Act so as to exclude Pro.
teatant Dirsenters. That Act required, that pre-
vious to entering upon office, the party should re-
ceive the Sacrament in the Protestant Church; and
if a person' Having dune so took office, nod u fterwards
absented himself from the Cloirch mid attended a
niertmg as a Dissenter, he was mint thereby Mays-
coated from office. To remedy this a Bill of Con-
formity was brought in, which pissed through the
Commons. but In its progress through the Lords
encountered much 01111(0111011. A conference was
at length agreed on, and certain Members ap-
pointed to attend it as mainigers for the House of
Cimino's,, stud certain Peers for the House of
Lords; among whom were Loid Peterborough,
Lord Halifax, the Duke of Devonshire, and Julio
Lord Somers. These were persous who, whatever
might be the light iii which be might view their
doctrines end °pillions, would not, lie presumed, be
held as light authorities by the Right Hon. Get,-
tlemiiii mid those who sat near him. And under
whit ttaitietice were they at that period ? Did they
consider the Church to be iii danger from the ill-
flueuce of the Pope ? or had they any apprelieu-
sions from a foreign i'murr ? .1.1 o• answer might he
gath•red from the Resolution which they adopted
in consequence of the conference which he had
mentioned ; which Resolution declared the Church
of England, as by law established, to be in a most