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

of great difficulty—dud ha was obliged to consider the cir-
eumstances and feelitigt.o-4various men—l have satisfied
myself on that point. -'sie.other point of declaring my-
self manfully and plainly a supporter of this measure, and
its desirable effects likely to be produced from it, I have
met with great pleasure.
Lord TENTERDEN and Lord F..tuxuam rose at the same
time.

Lord TENTERDEN addressed the House. My Lords,
it will not be expected from a person in my situation that
I should express an opinion, without endeavouring to make
known the grounds upon which that opinion is founded,
consistently with the law of the land. Some Noble per-
sons in the blouse, and many who speak and write on this
subject, I mean those who please to denominate themselves
the friends of religious liberty, if, by assuming that title
they mean to convey that those who differ from them are
not friendly to religious liberty, they are 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
friend to civil and religious liberty. I was educated, my
Lords, in the Church of England. I have all my life
admired its principles, and I should be among the most
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 consideretion of
its religious views and duties, great and important as they
are; but in the opinions I have entertained, and
still entertain, that the Protestant chureh is gore
favoured with civil and religious establishments than
prevail in any country whatever. My Lords, there is no '
church so moral as this. Can we then betray it my Lords?
Others may betray it if they think proper, but I cannot,
on looking at the present measure, think that there is that
in it which is calculated to over throw 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, ran I come to any
other conclusion ? Is it right ? I will not say that the
Popish hierarchy, should be suffered to do so ? Or, is it
likely that, I will not say the Popish hierarchy, but any
hierarchy under such circumstances would 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 Catholics. Differing as I do in opinion
with those Noble and Learned Lords, it is due to them
and your Lordships that I should explain the grounds on
which I have formed my opinion. My Lords, your attention
has been called to the Act passed at the Accession, and no
allusion was made to oaths of an ulterior 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 hetweeen them.
By that oath, the p arty 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 Houselto enable her to dispense with an oath. Thus
matters stood until that oath was adopted containing the
words:l have quoted. That *path, as I have stated already,
was evaded, but by what means I know not. But I rather
think that some way was discovered to satisfy the Catho-
lics, and this suggestion was the more likely, for your
Lordships 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,:ordahting 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 Howes 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 be 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 SOO! the Convention went 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 Parliaments. Their
next Act was, that of regulating the Coronation
oath, and they enacted, that that Oath should be 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 House shall take these
oaths, tied 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 Lords,' 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 1,70;(,s
of the Act itself, " bear office therein.".—(Hear, hear. )
The Noble Lord reed a pact of the provisions of the Act,
arid 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 1)411
of the Act itself. The Act then pi-accede with its enact-
ments, taad is its enactments it is trite you do not find
it ,tated that these oaths shall be continued, but you do
Lind a provision—a provision for the placing of the Crown
upon the head of King William, and with painciplee that .
shall be entertained by hie deeaendaos, having resolved
that the Pathl 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 0,:a1
theme had been no prezaoas eantatmant that Ail:tam ant
Mary should be King and Queen of this country, it seents
to me that is conclusive. All that was necessary then
to be done was done, and any thing else zserifial Iq 1,44
assn
04/i40.--( ri!aft .kraf• T,occhhiips aye toI
say that l'oese iiss' ere npt to be regarded as having been
established with a view to permanenay, bec‘tas yott-do not I
find them in the Bill of 4ifehte, that is saying, theft 110
man does not mean to do a thing because he did it once,
mid ao notice was taken of it. I shall now trouble mire
I..or:(l,bies with a few words op clf VinAon 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