The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-04 00:00:00

Catholics of this day are no more like the Catholics of the

time of Philip and Mary than light is like darkness. My
Lords, at this late hour I am unwilling to detain your
Lordships by going more largely than I have done into the
coasideralion of the various topics which the subject em-
braces. It was my intention to have endeavoured to have
explained the obligatory principle of the Coronation Oath,
about which so much has been said, but perhaps it is now
unnecessary, as the arguments on that point appear
to me to be given up in the course of the debate.
I am, however, reminded by my Hon. Friend on my right
that the Non, and Learned Lord wh o spoke last asked
where in your security ? I think, my Lords, it is impos-
sible to speak of any better security than that given by this
Bill. It has been said that if this becomes a law we may
have Popish Ministers, a Popish King and a Popish Par
liament, but is this a probabilty, or an improbability ! Ifthe
Roman Catholics possessed this power, no Act of Parlia
meni can control Them. I am unwilling to speak in allusion
to anything that has fallen from the opponents to this
measure, particularly when I consider the softened tone
which the debate has assumed. In the course of that
debate your Lordships have heard none of the denuncia-
tions which rung in this House during the previous part
of the Session. The Noble and Learned Lord had, in-
deed, taken care to vindicate the Protestant faith, and he
gave your Lordships his solemn assurance that he would
die in that faith. I trust it will be long ere hegives such
proof of his attachment to his religion. The Noble and
Learnen Lord alluded to the Oath of Supremacy, and
conterded, that unless that oath was abrogated, Roman
Catholics could not be admitted into civil power. Ido
not conceive that oath was framed for eny such purpose,
or with any such view, its only object at that time, and
that was a time of suspicion, was to ascertain who were
loyal subjects and who were not. I believe Hume stated
facts in which the Noble and Learned Lord would go along
with me, because they are founded on their own statute
books, on the evidence of history, and on the authority of
Queen Elizabeth's Minister. At that time, be it remem-
bered Roman Catholics took part in the affairs of the
state, and assisted in making the laws, and it was not till
the conferacy of foreign states against the English Govern-
ment, the Catholics were debarred from interference in
the concerns of government. I will admit that at the
time of Charles the Second the Catholics were held
so unworthy of trust, that they became suspected, but
why ? on account of their attachment to the King.
By the laws which were made against recusiney, Catholic
recusants were not allowed to come within ten miles of
London and Westminster. By this means they were dis-
abled from sitting in Parliament, and new writs were
issued for the places represented. This proved that by
the law as it stood, down to the time of Cherie IL, there
was nothing to prevent Roman Cctholics from sitting in
Parliament. There was in the 30th of Charles 11. a clause
against Popish recusanis, which had effect of excluding
them.—(Herr, hear.)—There were two enactments which
applied to them, the one declaring that they could not sit in
Parliament, unless they signed the declaration, and the
other, that unless they signed the declarations, they could
not be admitted to the presence of the King, and submit
to being banished to a distance of ten :miles from the
metropolis. What became of those laws ? All the law
against Popish recusancy were struk off. All the laws
banishing them from the presence of the King were
struck off, so that nothing remained but the mutilated
bust of 0. Titus Oates.—(Loud cheers and laughter.)—
Now, My Lord.', so much for the law of Titus—A
laugh)—for such I must call it. But at that time good
reason for the enactment of that law, for the Catholics
were then dangerous to the State. What is the meaning
of the Noble Lords, who state that these principles of ex-
clueion were consecrated at the revolution? What had
the revolution to de with that exclusive system ? Is it in-
corporated in the Bill of Rights ? Does that Bill contain
any trumperies alsout transubstantiation, and the worship
of the Saints? No ! they enacted those things which were
stated by my Noble Friend, and did not trouble themselves
with such trumperies as those. They enacted and declar-
ed the liberties of the people, so far as those liberties had
been invaded by the Crown, and no further. --(Great
cheering.)—They were no system.inongere, they were no
grinders of theories —( Hear.)—They were sober, practical
Statesmen, and they set themselves to inquiry into the
grievances of the people in order to redress them.—( Hear,
hear.)—There were thirteen particulars in which she
Crown had violated the rights of the people, and they ac-
cordingly declared them to be violations, and they con-
fined themselves to those. There was no stronger proof
than their declaration with regard to the right of the sub-
ject to petition the Throne, a right which had been in-
vaded in the case of the seven Bishops.—(Hear, hear.)—
They inserted in the Bill of Rights that the people had a
right to petition the Throne, and this proved that they
confined themselves to the existing grievances of that time.
I beg of your Lordships to observe the manner in which
they carried into execution the law relating to the acces-
sion to the Throne. In the preample they say that " when-
ever it has been found by experience that in the Protestant
kingdom the Crown ought also to be Protestant," and the
Act then goes on to say that the King must he of the Pro-
testaut religion, and if he marries a Catholic he forgets his
right to the Throne. My Lords, this is a Protestant
Kingdon, but does that imply that it is exclusively Pro-
testant? Have we not a Prote.stant Government and a
Protestant parliament ? It, in fact, is, and must be so till
the end of time, for there will be such a preponderance of
Protestants in it, that at no time can it cease to be a Pro-
testant Parliament. Another word, my Lords, before I
leave this subject. It is said that those acts which are
cotemporary with the the Bill of Rights, partake of the
same nature with the Bill itselfr There was one Act
passed in the first year of King Willistm, and'fliii I take
to Le most important. fiy thet Act, Papists were forbid
to eary arms, such a measure heir; considered necessary
fur she safety and security of the Protestants. In the Bill
of Rights woes is a claose for the Protestants to carry
arms, but there was no elause for the Roman Catholics
to do so. This was the only passage ip the Bill of
right from which it could be inferted that the Catholics
were not to be admitted to equal privileges with the Pro-
testants. But this Act was repealed by that of 1781, and
'that Act sepealed the laW which prevented Catholics from
access to the throne. Though much More danger Might
be apprehended from such wee; torn could accrue from
stating their opinions in this House, -where they ssetOd be
retired to by Nqds Lords who were opposed to them.
(Hear)—eAstotlter Act 44(1 009 beef repealed which was
person to„_
- Ito by the 14°11/G By the Oct of
refine.. office tees obliges!
-.e Attended.
ttohesubSesccroibned
But it was sufficient to do so alter their entering upon
thaenYdeclaratto,2 to which I ne,w-
office by the Act of William, host'ever, it appored that
this security was not allowed sufficient, and'lt was ass
cordingly enacted that this should sign the declaration
prior to entering on office. By the Act of 1781, the Act
of William was repealed, and the law was restored to the
same position in which it stood under the Act of Charles
11. This, my Lords I have proved that the Noble and
learned Lord himself, has taken great liberties with the
great foundations of British Freedam, (Hear, hear.)
than has been taken by his Majesty's ministers, ip intro-
ducing the present Bill.—(Cheers.)—Under the aetof ?-4e
Noble Lord the provisions of the Hct of William were
done away with, and insecurity was given in return. One
word more, my Lords, before I have done, with respect to
the intentions of the framers of the Bill of Kights. I
will trouble your Lordships with a abort extract now the
proceedings of this House for the purpose of showing the
opinions of the framers of the Bill of Rights when
in 1706 they were frnning the Scotch Union. My
occasion it was moved in this House
wise say, that we all felt when eve adapted this measure,
ml.7.dself,alliiiplohner;:e;;:o:fore vote against ,-.",;!elf. I must like-
that we were sacrificing ourselves and our popularity, :se
that which we felt to be our duty to our Severeign and
our country. We knew perfectls that 1' that it be en
instruction to this Committee to have a clause inserted in