The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-29 00:00:00

their Lordships had divided on a former night, he had ab-
stained from voting, for he was then in ,doubt as to the
effect the Bill might have on the present situation of the
Roman Catholics. He had been satisfied with the Bill as
it came up ft:lu the other House, and he thought it
would have been passed as it then was. Since the night
he had abstained froth voting, he had endeaVoured to
make himself master of the subject, and the conclusion he
came to was, that the Noble Earl's amendment was not
necessary for the protection of the Church. It appeared
clearly that all officers down to Common Councilmen.were
tcatitte the oath ofinPremacy. " He was aware that
ithatl;teens ;said, on more than one occasion, that this
oath was not sufficient, but he was of a contrary opinion,
The Roman Catholics have always said) they could hot
take the oath utiless qualified by a-Legislative explanation.
In the time of Charles IL, ail attempt had been Made to
induce Roman Catholics to do so, but Without success, and
one of the-moat:eminent 'Writers in their Conitnunion 'then
declared,' that no member of the Church of- Rome
could so take the oath of supremicy without com-
promising hi's religion, and -committing' a scandal be-
fore the whole Christian World. To hiln the circumstance
of Roman Catholics being of that idea was sufficient, and he
.vould not cling to any additional security. He would not
he willing; therefore, that the declaration thould carry the
appearance of being Anti-Catholic; When the time came,
he would be found in 'hisplace, ready to do his duty against
the CitholiC Question, .without fear or favour. lie was
now opposed to the Amendment, because it was caleulated,
as he thought, to produce mischief, withaut affording any,
security to the Church. In assisting to make the declara-
tion anti-catholic, he should be doing more than the Church
had a right to demand. He hoped he Would he excused
for adding one word en the charges brought against the
Rev. Bench, file sacrificing, the integrity'd the Church.
He would refer to the opinion of a distingiiished individual
long celebrated for the conscientious discharge of his
duties. He alluded to the late Lord Kenyon, who; in a
Communication to an illustrious personage, now also no
more, stated that any law for the ease of the Dissenters
would not militate against the Act of Union. He Would say
One word more t the Noble Earl who had last spoken had
stated that Bishop Burnet hadbeen made the mark of popular
calumny for his conduct in reaped of the. Bill cif occasional
conformities, and he would' yea(' the' venerable Prelate's
own words upon the subject. The Rev. Prelate then con-
cluded by reading an extract, in which Bishop Burnet says
that he and his Right Rev. Brethren had been slandered,
because they would not run the course prescribed to them
by ill-natured men, while they could appeal to the whole
world, or, what was still more, to God himself,' that they
had acted for the true interests of the Church, of good
men, and With a good design:

Lord KENYON rose .to rescue the character of his ve-
nerable father from misinterpretation. The Right Rev.
Prelate had merely taken an isolated passage, and had
UM' stated the circumstances under 'which the advice was
given. His venerable'ancestor never had recommended a-
politichl sacrifice. To " pass the question before their.
Lordships, he would say, that though the Right Rev. Pre-
lates might feel satisfied as to thesecurity of the Church,
they ought to shew some•little regard for the civil part of
the Constitution. He viewed the Established Church with
great respect, as well for its sabred character as its political
(influence; and he would always support the 'State in eon-
rectionwith the Church. But as for the Right Rev.
Bench, he would say that they showed very little concern
for either. He'would not tell the Right Rev. Bench that
they placed a higher value upon temporalities than on their
spiritual duties, for it would be in all probabilitY unjust,
and certainly unparliamentary ; but he would merely ask
them, if two eminent lawyers had.giVen such different opi-
nions upon a question concerning their temporal interests,
would they have pursued the same course they had pursued?
The Bishop of CHESTER 'had only quoted the words
of another. Ile thought the 'ChurchsuffiCiently.protected
in the act of uniformity, and a separate legislative establish-
ment.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF considered the security as
ample as before.
The Earl' of 'ELDON said, it was very well 'for Noble
Lords to say that the oath bf supremacy was a sufficient
protection to the Established Church, but he would rather
take the opinion of ParliaMent than'that of Noble Lords ;
and Parliament had over and over again denied that the
oath 'of' supremacy wag sufficient. If their Lordships
were to look to the words of the Act of Parliament, they
would find that these were the words of it—•! to keep
inviolable the true Protestant Church' as by law establish-
ed"—and he would say that it was to support that Pro-
testant- Religion that he felt it necessary to support the
amendment.

• The Duke of WELLINGTON begged leave to trouble
their tordshdps with one word, and only one woid. His
Noble-and Learned Friend' had said that it had frequently
been decided in Parliament that the oath of supremacy
was not sufficient to keep the Catholics out of the Cor-
porations. The Noble and Learned Lord had''not said
that the oath of supremacy had been altered. The oath of
supremacy had been prescribed by Act of Parliatnent-; and
he (the Duke of Wellington) was not'aware that.sifice the
-time of King William • Parliament had ever &Oared that
the oath of supremacy was 'not sufficient to effect the ob-
jects for which it had *been- 'enacted.' (Hear, hear.)—
But that was not the only ground- on which he would
test his argument: The Noble and Learned Lord on the
Woolsack had stated it 'al' his opinion that the oath against
transubstantiation ought to be taken-before persona should
enter into, any Corporation, Ind he (the Duke of Welling-
ton) must say, that the Noble Lord opposite, 'and the Noble
Lord near him, bad offered no argument in reply to that
of the Noble and Learned Lord upon the Woolsack, found-
ed upon the provisions of the Test Act.' But another ar-
gument in reply to those adduced in support of the amend-
ment was, that the oath of supremacy does at present pre.
vent Catholics from voting at elections. Now, he Would
ask their Lordships, what was there to prevent Catholics
from so voting, but that very oath ?—(Hear)-:--and if that
oath was sufficient to prevent Catholics voting-at elections;
he should, like to know, was it not sufficient, according to
the argument of the Noble Lord, to keep them out of
higher offices?—(Hear.)-11 it were sufficient—if the
oath of .supremacy were sufficient to prevent Roman Ca-
tholics' from voting at elections, surely their Lord Ships
would admit, that in a law brought in for another, and
totally distinct purpose. it was neither necessary nor fair to
introduce a clause against Roman Catholics.—(Hear. )
There was in that House no Noble Lord more 'decided—
none more fixed—none more determined in his hostility to
what"what was called the Catholic' Question, than lie him-
sellwas, and should continue to be, unless; indeed, some
extraordinary change should have taken place in it.—
(Hear.)—At the same time he felt bound to declare, that
there Could be no Noble Lord more averse than he himself
was to any new enactment against the Roman Catholics.—
(Cheers.) _ _ -

Their Lordships then divided, when there were—.

For the amendment—
Present 42
Proxies lO
--52

Against it—
Present
Proxies

• 100
▪ 54
—154
Majority against it 102

. . ...
The original clause was accordingly carried.

The next clause was--.“ And beiienacted, that if any
person plaied, elected, or chmen into any of the aforesaid
offices or places, shall omit or neglect to make and subscribe
the said declaration in manner abovementiOned,'suett'plac-
ing, election, or choice, shall he void."

To which an amendment was moved, during our exclu-
sion from the House, (by the Earl of Eldon, as we under-
stood) to the effect, " That it shall not be lawful for per-
sons so elected, to do or perform any act in such office to
which they may be elected until they shall have taken and
subscriber} the said declaration."
A desultory conversation ensued, in which the Duke of
Wellington, Earls Eldon and Carnarvon, Marquis of Sa...
lisbury, and Lord Ellenborough took part, which was in-
audible below the Bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that at present, ac-
cording to the provisions of the Act, the declaration must
he made within one month of the entrance of a person
upon office; and that if the party did not within that
time take it the office became void. His Noble and
Learned Friend proposed to do more—namely, to declare
that the persons sa chosen or elected shall do no act arising
'lr
Ac
out of his election. The consequence of
in of that
violationwould
w odf be,a
that o that
arPaarielntadi:ennet) wouldbYtilsubject
epart b
him to prosecution. He
himself saw no reason fur the Objections that had been
raised to the original clause.
The question was then put, and the amendment was ne
gatived without a division.
The Earl of ELDON, with all possible respect for the
Noble Lord on the Woolsack, felt it his duty to propose a
clause, in order to put beyond all doubt his meaning and
desire respecting the clause before their Lordships, and
which was to the following effect :—" And whereuy
doubts have been expressed whether persons chosen for q
elected to the office of Mayor, Alderman, Recorder, Higl
Bailiff, Town Clerk, or Member of Common Council, o
to any office of Magistracy, or relating to the governmen
of any city; borough, or corporation town, is bound to tak
and subscribe to the oath against transubstantiation, pre
scribed and contained in the Act of the 25th Charles
(Here also the Declaration in the present Act was recited]