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

' after' day, published and widely-stimulated, spat ing neither the
orators, nor tlie Jtiainiiii7oltheiiVlng. or the dead, deck-
; ring that they will; npt only.laa#e state in Parliament, but
Wilr root out, before they have don 4 thaf, pestilent heresy
they have fdund to exist opposed to their Hears)
If ydur isordthipS could not prevent meetings, you could
At least have prevented speechesS if you could not prevent
speeches, you could at least have prettisted their publica-
tion. Therefore, whether the present measure will have
tbt effect of putting an end to the aggravated state of
things at present :ti the question. Whether it will satisfy
the minds of all who haVe he! en an interest in
the subject? My Lords, lam most decidedly cf opinion it
will not, and therefore I must vote against the measure,
which I shall do with great sorrow, considering it will be
against the views of those whom I bare heard so learnedly
and so powerfully argue the cause. My Lords, I take it to
be the deity of all not to relieve ourselves from danger
without the prospect of being able to better our condition,
and by this measure I really cannot perceive that we shall
have the slightest chance of so doing. If we pass this measure
we shall be much less able to res'st the attempts of those who
by the measure we are giving in the true sense of the word
political power to,tend who have long been making attempts
against our existing laws, than we are at present. I hope,
my Lords, I may be mistaken in my views of the measure
should it pass into a law, but in my opinion, should it
pass, the time will soon come when your Lordships will
find the sentiments I entertain of it will ha realized.
Earl GREY—My Lords, in discussing a question so
often discussed by persons more popular than myself, in
which I have on repeated occasions found myself com-
' pelled, in the course of my duty, to offer to you a state-
ment of the motives that influenced my conduct and feeling,
on this occasion, however, I can add nothing to what I
before stated—still less to what has been stated by others.
I most certainly feel that an apology is due to you in
bringing myself forward to your notice. In the next
place, I must state to your Lordships that I rise with con-
siderable fear that something like presumption should be
imputed to me, if I ventured to differ from a Noble Lord
(the Lord Chief Justice of England), who has rested
the greatest part of the arguments he has thus
addressed to your Lordships, with statements of law
with which he is necessarily more acquainted,
which lie has studied more and with which he has a more

perfect knowledge than I can possibly have—therefore it

. .
might be like presumption in me to offer a difference of
opinion. A sense of duty, however, my Lords, induces
me to state what my opinions are, and even unlearned as I
am I will venture, against the judgment of the Noble and
Learned Lord, to offer the views I have taken upon
the subject. Indeed, I:am not sure that we came to a
very different conclusion ; for the Noble Lord, after
having gone through an historical tale of the Oaths of
Supremacy and Allegiance downwards from the time of
Queen Elizabeth, in the Bill of Rights, and also in

the Bill of Union, the Noble Lord C;)mcs` to the con-
elusion that he admits the power of Parliament
_

to abrogate these Acts. Nay, he goes further—he says
that if this individual measure can be proved to him likely

to produce the objects its promoters rjpresent,itis

lated to produce the peace and happiness of lreland,then that
he himself will give it his support. My Lords, I feel my-
self therefore under the necessity of abstaining from enter-
ing into that debate which I have so often entered
into on former occasions, namely, whether the Act
of Union and the Act of the Revolution have been
made so irrevocable, that notwithstanding any induce-
ment of policy or expediency, it is utterly impossible
for us without a breach of the contract which exists
between the King and the people to make the slightest
alteration in those laws.—(Hear.)—The Noble Lord I
trust does not maintain that proposition; to what
then are we to address ourselves? Why my Lords, that in
the days of Elizabeth it was thought necessary to guard
against Popery. I admit that to the Noble Lord, but in the
time of Charles the Second it was thought necessary, by
circumstances of the country, under some apprehensions of
danger, to enact other laws for the exclusion of the Papists
and to guard the religion of this country. lam also
ready to admit that, under the same impression, at the
passing of the Bill of Rights and the Union with Scotland,
Parliament did proceed to enact'civil provisions, That I
am ready to admit. But the question we have to con-
sider this day is, whether, these enactments under these
circumstances, and with these views, are, in the present
state of circumstances under which we are to discuss
them, so binding upon us, so precluded from apply-
Aug the remedies, that we think them most likely
to prevent the dangers with which we are threatened.
Now I certainly have during my life uniformly supported
the principles of civil and religious liberty. The Noble
Lord might have spared what I did not expect to hear
from him, a sort of reproach . to the members of this
'House of arrogating exclusively to themselves that prin-
ciple. My Lords, I arrogate nothing—l believe lam
a true friend to religious liberty—l believe I have
shown myself to be so for thirty years, and a
friend to these measures, which at last are likely
to be carried into effect. But I arrogate nothing
to myself in that character. Ido not pretend there may
not be others as truly friends of religious liberty as myself,
but who, from some feelings, cannot bring themselves to
agree to the proposition now brought forward. Now, I
will subscribe to what the Noble Lord has said of the
Church of England. lam a member of that Church, I
believe in its superior doctrine and purity of its
.princi-
plee—l believe the proposed measure will never have the
effect of endangering the Church—and 1 believe it will be
a measure that will be found in its effects considerably
to strengthen and support it. I believe the true principles of
that Church, if rightly acted upon, are favourable to
religious liberty. Put, if the Noble Lord chooses to re-
flect on me as arrogating to myself the liberty of a friend
in contradistinction to others, beg to assure him I
would with him defend every attack on the church.—
The Noble and Learned Lord had strived hard historically
to explain the duties of allegiance and supremacy, and to
make us acquainted that they were passed in the time of
Elizabeth, for the purpose of guarding against the danger
of Popery. No doubt, my Lords, the events of those times
fully justified the passing of those Acts. It was not wonderful
that they should wish to have seme test and security for
the Protestant Religion. But, my Lords, it should be recol-
lected that the oath of supremacy was not levelled at the
Papists. It would be a reflection on Noble Lords to
remind them that this Act was not intended exclusively
to censure those professing the Roman Catholic religion;
that could not be the case, for in those times it was ge-
nerally supposed that the Roman Catholics had liberty:from
the Pope to upset any oath imposed upon them by persons
differing from them is religion. The Noble and Learned
Lord had talked much of the danger of Roman Catholics
being admitted into offices of the state. I thought
4,hese antiquated notions had long ago been excluded.—
(Hear, hear, hear.)—The late Lord Liverpool himself,
in all his apposition to the Roman Catholic claims, never
imFuted to them disloyalty. Now, my Lords, can there
be any better security than the security of the oath pro-
posed for the Roman Catholics to take—that oath
was a sufficient safeguard to the Protestant religion ;
and, my Lords, we all know the regard the Catholics
entertain for the obligation of an oath ; it was because
they would not take the testing oath that excluded
them from offices of this nature ; that oath imposed sa-
crifices which they never would submit to. Could
it then be said that they ought not to be trusted ?
In the time of Queen Elizabeth, to which allusion had so
often been made in the course of the debate, it should be
recollected that the Catholics were trusted and appointed
to highoffices, andthat;Monarch possessed their confidence.
Who was it that destroyed the Spanish Armada ? Who
was the Admiral who commanded the fleets of England
against that powerful force which was directed against
our country, and if success failed, would have destroyed
our liberty. It was a Roman Catholic, Lord Howard of
Effingham,whose statue now adorned a neighbouring edifice.
Perhaps he might have obtained a license from the Pope
—(great laughter) to fight the battles of a sovereign who
had been excommunicated by the See of Rome, and which
power had absolved his subjects from their allegiance.
Yes, my Lords, under these circumstances, was a Roman
Catholic appointed by a Protestant Queen, to oppose the
most powerful force ever directed against this country--
and that too acting under the banners of Popery.—( Hear,
hear.)—Why, my Lords, what more is necessary to show
the confidence that can be reposed in Roman Catho.
lies. Perhaps, my Lords, it is unnecessary for me
to go into the legal arguments of the Learned Lord who
has just sat down. It was acknowledged that this was a
question of political expediency. whether granting the
Roman Catholics their civil rights would or would
not endanger the safety of the Established Church.—
(Hear, (rear.)—My Lords, the Acts imposing these
disabilities, were passed under a strong sense of necessity,
and I am therefore free to admit that they are entitled to
the greatest regard and attention, but I never can
agree with those Noble Lords who wish to make an
impression that these laws were intended to . be per-
manent, and that it was not in our power to
alter them. This fallacy has been again and again ex-
posed, and never more satisfactorily than by the Noble
Lord who spoke from the Woolsack last evening. That
Noble Lord clearly proved that it was competent for Par-
liament to enquire into the nature of those restrictions.
I have advocated the seine cause--I have before combatted
the subject with the Noble and Learned Lord sitting at
the table before me, and who; I perceive, is very 'busy
taking notes,--(Great laughter. May 'avid been