The Sun.
London, England, 1819-06-11 00:00:00

work of co7cession, which would best lead the
WA`, to that final and healing- ajustinent with re-,
'pert Po religious exclusion, which unavoidahlY
they would have to come to at last, The Noble
E tben moved the second reading of the Bill for
abrogating the. Tests imposed by Ihe Acts of the
25th and 30th of his Majesty King Charles the
Second,
The Bishop of NORwiCu expressed great saris.
felon on secouding the motion. He strongly
conOemned the policy of proscribing 5,000,000
of loyal subjects, because other persons Nupposvd
they hoder,touri the Catholic Religion better than
the Catholif.ts themselves. There never was a

itystem so directly opposed to all the dictates of
• -
Vitind tViciiWil 'and enlightened policy titan the pre-
sent "S ; 1)10 tlit had here so ably and eloquently
atatpd by the Noble Earl, who introduced the
motion, that it would he presumption in him to
think that any thing he could add mould give any
further .weight to that speech. The spirit of
Cliristiauity was repugnant to such a system, and
therefore such solemn transactions as oaths,
care ought to lie taken to plevent the conscience
fruit) bring in soy respect reminded. lie there-
lore deplored that Nrenibers of that lionse were
__compelled to make such a declaration as they did
when tt;er took their seats ; and for himself he
could on'y say; that after having taken such oaths
as the law directed, he had nor unfrequently felt
a very strong sensation of self-reproaCh. lie
was ,further persuaded, that were it not for the
glorious uncertainty of the law, and the ambigu-
ous terms in which the words acre expressed,
that many in that place would feel as unpleasantly
as tie did. Mitch had on former occasions been
said of the antiquity of the Test and Corpora-
tion Acts ; but the question was, not whether
the law was old, for antiquity never could be
plausibly urged as sanctioning, injustice, but !he
point was, is the law, as it now stands, wise
and good ; NMI are its provisions such a's ought
Pot to he infringed ? lie had no hesitation in

saying, that, in his opinion, they were not so,
for he could not consider tbat part of the Act in any
letter light than that it was a profanation of the
moat sacred ordinance of our holy religion, to
make it the holder by which men were to climb
to orricial situations: Such ought not on any
pretev to be allowed in a free country, He there-
fore, on the whole, implored their Lordships to
ancede to, the proposition of the Noble Earl, as,
in doing so, they would be at once discharging
an act of justice to the four millions of local sub-

sects now prOscribed, and would he also follow-
ing the impulse of sound policy. The Right Re-
verend Prelate concluded his speech (many parts
of which were inaudible at the Bar from the low
tone in which he spoke), by seconding the mo-
tion Of the Noble Earl, lorthe second reading of
The Archbishop of CaNTaattutur believed he
was actuated solely in his conduct with respect to
the measure in question, by an interest which he
really believed influenced every one of their Lord-
ships, namely, the maintenance of the Protestant
Government of this country in Church and State.
The measure before their Lordships Was directed
to the same end which a proposition lately be-
fore the House aimed at, but which the Howe
had deliberately, af,er full discussion, decided
against. The present Bill not -miry sin-led at the
same end, but it set aside all intermediate in-
quiry through the medium of a Committee char;;-
etl to inquire how any dangerous consequences to
the State, by what was proposed, might he avoid-

ed. The Bill vent to ahrov.are one Statute in
particular, which was the only insnrmountable ob-
stacle remaining r 0 the admission of Catholics into
both Houses of Parlian;ent. He meant the 3011
of Charles 11. The Tests in question *ere not
merely speculative or dogmatical; they distinctly
pointed out who seas a Catholic, or who was not.
He could not think of their quarrelling with the

Catholics for doctrinal opinions, though he may
regret their errors, but the proposed 13111 went to
do away the only insurmountable obstacle against
their admissiOn into the Legislature. Such had
been allowed to be the effect of the Act of the 30th
of Charles 11., and it was his own decided opi-
nion the oath of supremacy teas not sufficient for
the purpose. It was a mistake to assert that Ca-
tholics sat freely in Parliament before that Act ;
there were many severe restraints upon them be-
fore, particularly the Acts in Elizabeth's reign ;
they sat in consequence, as it were, fettered and
hound to their seats ; and if Catholics were
now brought back to Parliament, it would
be in very different circumstances from those
in which they sat in the time of Charles the Se-
cond. The measure would tend to place the
Constitution in a perilous state. Let them look
at what passed in the time of Charles, the Second,
when there was a Catholic King, with Protest..
ant Lords and Commons ; but in the present
case it may lead to a state of things, where a
Protestant king would fill the Throne,' surround-
ed by Catholic Lords and Commons. It could not
be denied that such anomalies would tend to put
the two Houses into their possession. He was
opposed to all experiments of a wild or hazardous
nature, more especially with 'reference to the pre-
sem state of Europe, or to any measure which may
'lead the country into a state of confusion or
danger. He trusted the 1-louse would hesitate be-
lore it exposed the country to any dangerous po-
litical experiments, and at a moment too when it
was beginning io rest and respire after a long state
of expensive devastating, warfare; and on these
grouods he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.
The Earl of LiveaPoot, avowed, that he was
not friendly to religious tests in civil matters as a
general principle ; but becaose the eircuur-
stances of this country were of a peculiar nature,
lie would ever support the religions tests which her
Government hail it, its wisdom established.' • He
was old enough to remember the Contentions
schich had agitated this country upon the repeal
Of the Test and Corporation Acts. The passing
of the Annual ludemnity Acts rendered it impos-
sible that the former Acts could be objected to
in coesequetice of arty imputed oppression in
diem. In all this conflict, it was not the prac-
tical operation of the lawS that was looked to,
but it was that thio,e Acts gave that security
-to the Pt oteStant Church which it could oat-
h:l,le without them. IVith regard to the scru-
ples the Protestants might have, iu decks-
ing several tenets of the Catholic Church to be I

enpers'itiost. and idolatrous, he wbahl ask, e..isshi
any Protestant object to describe them so ? But
the great question was, what was to he the effect
of removing the Declaration Acts ? Wonlsl it not
have the effect of admitting Catholics into Par-
liament ? He was ready to admit himself, that the
Act of Supremacy would be a sufficient obstacle
to every Catholic of a liberal educa!ion. lie
would go even further: be believed that before
the period of Charles 11. no Catholics sat in Par--
liament by taking the -Oath of Supremacy. It
this be true, what was to be the benefit of re-
moving the. Declaration ? The repeal of it could
do no good, while, in, the opinion of many, it
might do a rear deal of harm. Were he satis-
fied that giving up this point as one of feeling to
the Catholics would end the matter, he would
Dave no objection to concede it. Did the Noble
Lord sure that no more was to be attempted ? lie
did tint.—(near, hear, hear !)—Attention, it wai
mated, might to be paid to Catholic feeling. No
doubt it ought at the same time, the feelings of
Prot eat ant s were entitled tu equal consideration..
Ir was not to the prejudice of any party that he
s_•onld yield, but upon a,ease of duty, and there-
fore he would give Isis negative to the present Bill.

Lord GRENVILLE-asked, in the natoe of those
%slob had founded our liberties, why their descen-
()a ta were excluded from the blessings which
they had securer) to us ? Ile contended, thatdoc-
teiiies were attributed to the Catholics by their
opponents, which had no existence. All Catho-
lics would feel indignant at the idea of bolding a
divided allegiance. They professed the saline alle-
giance as his Nlajesty's other subjects, and with
equal ardoor and sincerity. IViin respect to the
oath, which branded them with idolatry, it was
taken by thousands, not, with regatid to then oavtt
belief, but to stigmatize the creed of their fel-
low subjects. It their Lordships wished to esta-
blish order and to:llmnd prosperity on a solid
foundation, they must be; in by silencing those
odiOtia distinctions. Instead of maguitying the
glamo(1 of separation, it was,the duty of the
Legislature to conciliate, to reconcile, and to
unite the Catholics and Protestants, if not in
one common faith, at least -in the
,commou
bond of social, stud the enjoyment of political
rights. Would any Noble Peer lay his hand
on his heart and say, that the religion of
Fenelon was idolatry ?—The Catholics believed
a myaiery and miracle, which it was possible for
God Almighty to perform, aml liar which they con-
ceived they foond groutols in the Holy Script ores.
It was not therefore in them an act of idolatry,
but one of pure devotion. But the declaration
went further. It stated dint the sacrifice of the
mass, as performed by the Church qt Rome, was
aidolatrous. Now he should like to know how
many of the 800 who had lately taken that oath,
had ever read the mass service, or inquired how it
was perfOrmed by the Church of Rome ? Was it
wrong to endeavour to remove from the country
the stigma of so tiojust an appeal to the Creator
Why should the Protestants thet»selyea be bound
on the subject ? They might consider the service
of the mass improper, but not idolatrous, and that
was the °piano) of Bishop Hera ing and Archbishop
Shelton. Let their Lordships have honest y enough
to tell the•CathOlica that they excluded them, not
on political grounds, but because they were Ca-
tholics, and believed in Transubstantiation. it
was vain to think that the subject would rest
where it now seas ; God forbid it should.--
, It was said that the present Bill was not
the result of 4 Committee. But the Com-
mittee had been proposed and rejected on the
ground that sortie specific measure ought to be
brought forward. Now the specific measure came,
and 'a Committee was represented as the only
course which could be adopted !--(hear, hear !)
The Lone CHANCELLOR objected to the pre-
sent proposition, because, if it were adopted, it
would effect the complete emancipation of the
Catholics, without security belt% given on their
part to their Protestant brethren. lale contended
that the oath of supremacy had been introduced
for the purpose Of letting Men know what true alle-
giance was: The measure in cootemplition tended
to overturn the law of the country. Ile RdWil(ed
that the religious test of political opinions im-
posed upon the Catholics might he ata evil, but it
was one which the necessity of the case retpiii•ed.
He then took an historical view of the Acts pass-
ed in favour of die Catholics anal against them,
ever since the reign of Mary and Philip. He
'maintained that the Catholics could not avail
themselves of the Indemnity Bill to take office,
as 1118 t Bill was passed every year, and Pddia-
HMO would have a speedy opportunity of ascer-
taMing its operation, and repealing it jif it were
necessary. He contended that it was as fair to
establish grounds of exclusion against Roinati
Catholics, as to declare that no man should sit in
Parliament who had not 3001. a year. As their
Lordships regarded a' Protestant King, and valued
their liberties as settled in the reign of William
let them resist measures like tire present, for
they would be tinpar(lonahle in the eyes of pos-
terity if they suffered their rights to descend to
their successors in an impaired state.
The Earl of Haanowny combated the arguments
of his Noble and Learned friend, as they tended
to sinew that Catholics Were only excluded 00 the
groom) of their religion. It had been said that
the declaration against transubtatitiation was only
a religious test of political opinions, but why
should such fairest he required, when other tests
of an entirely,poileical nature, and of the ni*ost
satisfactOry description, were previously given ?
With respect to•the declaration that the worship
of the Church of Route was idolatrous, be could
not jobs in it. He was ready to allow that the
practice of the lower and uneducated orders, in
praying to the Saints, might be idolatrous ; butt
-if he looked to the doctrine of the Rotnish Church
on that point, as settled by the Council of Trent,
he could not conscientiously say that it was ido-
latrous, although he might consider it improper.
Earl BATHURST contended, that the Oath of
Supremacy was not sufficient to exclude Roman
Catholics from the House of Gnomons. The de-
claration against Transobstantiaticm had been,
ad.led to accomplish that object, But the present,
Bill went further than the repeal of that declara-
tion, and laid a foundation for repealing the o.ith
of Supremacy. On these grounds he 'sh'ould vote
Against the measure.
Eat! GREY replied at great length, and followed

the d'itrent 'Noble Lords thcir several objec-
tions to his Bill. Against the insinuations thrown
out by the Noble Lola whb bad jest snt dustn,
he placed his uniform eouduct iu Parliament) and
then lamentrd that the Noble Lord should have
known so little of him as to suspect he conceal-
ed any lurking design different front the awe he
put forth. He again reheated that his only ob-
ject in this Bill was to efface the galling character
given the religion in the Statute Bonk, and thus
nrike a beginning of that harmony between Ca-
tholic and Protestant, which, whatever might be
the result of it, he did not doubt of seeing one
day established.

The House then divided, and the numbers
were—

Contents 49 Proxies
Not-Contents .... Proxies
Nlajorit y ;Against the fill ---59.
Adjourned at 1-1,11-pist '14,1 ye .this Morning.

HOUSE OFLOMNIONS.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL.

\Tr. Sheriff Roberts appeal ell at the voilit with fi
Prtitioo from the Corvoration of the City of
London, ntzlinst the Foteit.tn Enlistment BIT

Mr Alderman WOO!) said, Ova the Petition had been
azreed to in a tr,ry full Cnort, and hoped it would he token
into the serious consideration of the Hauge, cumileil as it did
from so respectable a hods as the Corporation of London.—
Read, and ontered to lie 01) the table.
Mr. S'lqt_%, ItT woRTLEy ~,„,ed that a Committee he ap-
pointed 'to tegutate the Stampiii;.; of Woollen Cloths.—
Atp to.