The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-06 00:00:00

subject, I mean those who please to denominate themselves
the'friends of religious liberty, if, by assuming that title
they Mean to cCinvef that thoSe Who differ from them are
not friendly to religious liberty,' they ?,re greatly mistaken.
Every man may state his opinion—he may state the mo
tives on which he acts—and I will yield to no one in ask-
ing and claiming to myself the right of being deemed a
aiiend o trill aY(I I. was educated, my
Lords, in the Church oi Enoirid have all my lite
admired its principles, and I should be among the inns`
ungrateful if I had not done so. My esteem for that
church has grown stronger and stronger with my years, my
esteem for that church is founded not merely upon the
purity of its doctrines, not merely upon eonsiderstion of
its religious views and dutiesl great and important as they
are; hmt in the opinions I have entertained, and
still entertain, that the Protestant church is store
favoured with civil and religious establishments than
prevail in any country whatever. My Lords, there is no

chtircl► re moral at this. Can we then betray it my Lords?
Others may betray it if they think proper, but I cannot,
on looking at the present meaauie, think that there is that
in it which iscalculated to overthrow the Protestant Church.
My Lords, when I find the Clergy of the Catholic Church
assuming the name and credit and► dignity of the diocese
which is only known to the law, can I come to any
other conclusion ? Is it right ? I will not say that the
Popish hierarchy, should be suffered to (10 80 ? Or, is it
likely that, I Will not say the Popish hierarchy, but any
hierarchy under such circumstances wonld be content to
leave others in the enjoyment of those rights and privileges
to which they believe themselves fairly entitled ? Is it not
natural that there should exist in their minds an anxious
desire to obtain a restitution of those privileges; and where
that desire exists, is it not natural that they should
adopt such means as might in the end lead to such
a result.—(The Noble Lord here became inaudible, when
we again heard him, he proceeded.) My Lords, these are
the points which have influenced me to oppose the present
Bill. My Lords, it is contended by the Noble and Learned
Lords who have addressed your Lordships, and for whose
talents I have the highest respect, that those Acts which were
passed at the revolution did not contemplate the perpetuity of
the exclusion of the Citholics. Differing as I do in opinion
with those Noble and Learned Lords, it is due to them
and your Lordships chat I should explain the grounds on
which I Lave formed my opinion. Aly Lords, your attention
has been called to the Act passed at the Accession, and no
allusion was made to oaths of an ulte►ior date. It was
said that the exclusion of the Catholics was no older than
Charles the Second, and that it was then brought on by
the most wilful misrepresentation of the Roman Catholics,

My Lords, this is not true ; it is true as far as regards

the admission of Catholics to Parliament; but it is not true
as regards their capability of holding official situations. By
the Act of Elizabeth an oath was required to be taken by all
classes of his Majesty's subjects. It was true that oath was
abrogated atthe accession of William, but another substituted,
and there was no very material difference between them.
By that oath, the party taking it was required to swear,
that no foreign Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, has
or ought to have power, command, jurisdiction, civil or
ecclesiastical, within these realms.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
I admit, my Lords, that notwithstanding this oath,
many Catholics did take office, but what construction
they put upon the oath, I know not?—(Hear, hear. )
By the sth Elizabeth a similar oath was required to be
taken by all Members of the House of Commons, but not
by Members of the House of Peers, it being expressly stated
that her Majesty had sufficient confidence in the Members
of that House to enable her to dispense with an oath. Thus
matters stood until that oath was adopted containing the
words I have quoted. That oath, as I have stated already,
was evaded, but by what means I know not. But I rather
think that some way was discovered to satidy the Cabo-
lice, and this suggestion was the more likely, for your
Lordship must be aware that the Pope has been always
fertile in expedients to relieve his flock from all obligations,
except those which they owe to him and his church. An Act
passed in the reign of William, ordaining an oath, entitled
the oath of allegiance, and this in conjunction with that
passed by the statute of 25 Charles 11. by all officers, civil
and military, and by all Members of both Houses of Par-
liament. If your Lordships look to the Act of William,
called a declaration of the rights and liberties of the people,
you will not find it there laid down that these oaths are to
be taken for ever ; and it is right that your Lord-
ships should find them in such a declaration. But
that declaration was not to lie taken alone : it
was to be considered in conjunction with all the other
Acts passed by the same Parliament. In the time of the
Convention, the two Houses deliberated on the 22d January,
on the 80th-the Convention wept to the Prince of Orange,
and on the 13th February that Convention became. a Par-
liament, and so continued till it was dissolved. It became
so in fact after the declaration of rights was presented to
King William. Their first Act was, that the new oath
to which I have alluded should be taken, and the de-
claration. subscribed by all future Parliameuts. Their
next Act was, that of regulating the Coronation
oath, and they enacted, that that Oath should he taken
by all the future Kings and Queens of England. I ask,
my Lords, whether there is any difference between enact-
ing that every Member of either Honse shall take these
oaths, and that they shall be taken by future Parliaments.
—The question is, what was the 'intention of Parliament
at the time. If we judge by the situation, it is clear

there is no difference, but that the intention was that the
Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy also should be taken
by the Members of all future Parliaments. The Noble
Lord then alluded to the Act of Settlement, and argued
that that also contemplated the perpetuity of the laws
then made relative to Catholics.—My Lordet,i I will now
draw your attention to another Act, called the Declara-
tion of Rights in Scotland. By that Act no Catholic
can take 'a seat in either House, or, to use the words
of the Act itself, " bear office therein."—( Hear, hear.)—
The Nobfe Lord read a part of the provisions of the Act,
and then continued—the resolution that is embodied in
the Act of Parliament presented to the Prince and Prin-
cess of Orange, on the 13th of February, was made part
of the Act itself. The Act then proceeds with its enact-
ments, and in its enactments it is true you do not find
it stated tl;at these oaths shall he continued, hut you do
find a provision—a provision for the placing of the Crown
upon the head of King William, and with principles that
shall be entertained by his descendants. Having resolved
that the oaths shall be taken, and having resolved that
Certain persons shall wear the Crown, and when you
come to find that by former Acts it had been especially
provided that these oaths should be taken, and that
there had been no previous enactment that William and
Mary should be King and Queen of this country, it seems
to me that is conclusive. All that was necessary then
to be done was done, and any thing else seems to have
been omitted.—(dear, hear.)—lf your Lordships are to
say that these laws are not to be regarded as having been
established with a view to permanency, because you do not
find them in the Bill of Rights, that is haying, that a
man does not mean to do a thing because he did it once,
and no notice was taken of it. I shall now trouble your
Lordships with a few words on the Act of Union with
Scotland. It was said with great triumph that it appears
by the Act that the oaths shall be taken until Parliament
shall otherwise direct. Now that certainly is part of the
Act, but if your Lordships will read the whole of the Act
that has been alludett in by a Noble Lord that has addressed
you, you will find that after the articles of Union were
agreed upon there was an Act for settling the manner in
which Peers should be elected to leave in Parliament.
(Hear, hear.)—That Act is set forth in the Act of
William, and it is declared that Act shall be as
valid as if it had been engrossed and made part of the
Act of 'William.—(Hear.)—Then what does the Act
contain? It contains this, that none shall be capable to
elect or be elected for any of the said seats (Houses of
Commons and Lords) but such as are 21 years of age
complete, and Protestants, excluding all Papists, or such
as being suspected of Popery, 4.c. Now, therefore, my
Lords, it appears, that taking the whole of that Act to-
gether, it shows that it is to be considered those who
by the Crown represent the three kingdoms
shall lie Protestants. How incumbent is it then, before
your Lordships proceed to overthrow an Aet, that you
si,ould know distinctly what it is. My Lords, the present
measure proposes to repeal this Act for the sake of the
peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and this country. Now
if I could suppose that this measure would have that effect
_ _

it should have my cordial support—(llear)—bnt I am by
no means able to bring myself to take that view of the mea-
sure. Tbe danger of abrogating fermer laws, your Lordships,
ought to be aware is always great, and before such a step
is taken, a sufficient protection ought to be provided. I
admit that there is a prospect before your Lordships cal-
culated to baffle the firmest mind and the stoutest heart—
language which has already been made use of, and stronger
than which I cannot use. The question is will this mea-
sure retard it ? My Lords, I have already alluded to the
hierarchy and the Protestant Establishment of this country,
which I feel bound to regard with the highest esteem. By
what means Ireland has been brought into a state which in a
very few months has brought a change in the minds of
many individuals, Ido not know. I know not by what
this change has taken place, or by whose neglect, or
by what improper encouragement, this state of things has
been brought about, or by what apathy it has been permitted
to go on ; it is vain for me to enquire into it. If, as a
lawyer, I were called upon to judge, I must say, that nothing
I have heard has been-sufficient to satisfy my mind that
groper steps have been taken ; speeches have been made day