Star.
London, England, 1828-05-09 00:00:00

wry,

which was never before declared to be broken? ArA
`That too without taking into consideration the whit;
compacts subsequently entered int the tcd•ionf
the Union of England with Scotland 41. d l el.nd?
it, I repeat, a qatesnian-like way of arguing to pin fO,l
ward such a Treaty? Suppose the Hous should, at
legislating on a subject, rake up some old Treaty nin4
in fhe time of the vows between the 110%1m:040,k 414
Lancaster, or in the reign of Hem y itp R
bearing on the subject of their legsblation,.l ask, onto
tbe.House to place any reliance on arguments town
on documents of such remote antiquity.? Surely:44
but how did the Irish themselves act in relation
this Treaty? They did not consider the Tre,ity`•
the same view that the Hon. Baronet looks at it
in the Parliament that sat in the October following,
a doubt was expressed intimating a violation '4 du
Treaty. No, it was reserved for those days to assert thit,
I contend that all the lawyers from Lord Coke down,

wards declared their opinion that England had a n

to bind Ireland. In the Parliament That met in 14.2,—'
the Catholics were asked to take that oath (of Som.
macy). and they must have declined; for it appek,
there was but one Catholic Commoner in that
ment, the Representative of the county bf the town rif
Tuam. In fact, a construction has been given to di,
Treaty of Limerick which was never dreamed of octht
time. In giving to the Catholics the privilege, thei
enjoyed in the reign of Charles H. it was never come.
plated to admit them into the House of Commix,.
Sir, there is no stability at all in the argument. ac
the Honourable Baronet complains that the Catholic,
have been deprived of inalienable tights; now, thi,j,4
the case. The Honourable Baronet confounds mitts
rights with political privileges. I agree with him, ih,
every subject of the state has a right to life, liberty,,,,
property;. and that the Government that would in,a4
those rights, would not only violate all law, but rear
be acting on a principle whose operation must destro.
that Government itself ; but to deny public cffice,l,
persons holding opinions injurious to the t. te, is q
another thing from the deprivation of natural tight,
but never, since the memory of man, were persons bold

ing opinions detrimental to the state allowed to tura
office in that state. Sir, the idea of such a thing is 11x4;
absurd. Who would make a Quaker, who holds at
doctrine of non-resistance, the General of any arty;
or a German Anabaptist, who holds that all property
should be in common, a Judge? or one of the Luatic
of the times of Cromwell, a dignitary of the Chunb?
Sir, the violation of natural rights sounds well; but tilt
abridgments of political privileges are not to be Cot
founded with penal laws.—Penal laws are those enaa
silents which inflict penishments on a man for worship
ping the Divinity according to the dictates of ki '
conscience ; against such laws I shall ever mu. a:
voice ; but to exclude from office persons holtliti:
opinions detrimental to the state is not a punishaux
It is absurd to suppose it.

Com yentum ad verum est, sensus moresque repugnant,
Atque ipso utilitas, Justi prope mater et aqui. •
Sir, a review of our laws to the remotest period, a
show the great care and caution with which our a
tors provided for the safe and indissoluble union of
Church with the State. Looking then at the grog
on which they enacted those laws, and on the circell
stances of the present time, is there, I ask, any suffi ie
new reason that can warrant us in throwing open ti
door to rash innovations ? I will not here detail e ,
feuds and animosities that gave rise to those laws, 1
is sufficient for me that I find them in existences
I will not cast such a libel on the wisdom of•ourd
cestors—(Cheeeing from the Opposition side) as tole
pose they enacted them without adequate reason. Sir
contend that these laws were enacted by some of
wisest men that ever lived. At the period of the
formation these laws were moulded by men who
the ornaments of their times. In the reign of Qad
Elizabeth an Act was passed, the preamble of off
recited, that the Commons prayed her Majesty tonsil
those Acts which had been repealed in the preceditr
reign, condemning as illegal those claims usurped b
Foreign POWers to exercise dominion within the reals
and uniting all authorities and jurisdictions under ti
dominion of the Crown; and it is worth remarking,tl/
the Commons in that were claiming no new power,tr
the restoration of one that had been for a seasone
pended. Thus the. first and second of Philip and MA
were repealed, and the old Acts against foreio pow
tevived. - The next legislation on this subject was ii
otediately after the Restoration, when Acts were pays
ordering,the oaths against Popes y to be taken on eat'
•ineoffices in the State and Corporations. The object
these-lews'of the-reign of Charles was to strengtheilt
'anion .betvieen the State and the Reformed Chu"
Then, coming down to the Revolution, no man '
*ay that-the enactments then on this subject were Tho
than ivrestoring of the laws to that condition is who
had been' before the reign of James the b
cond. LOok at the care and caution with which dl'
Coronation Oath was drawn up—that oath 11 1
taken by the King, by which be. promised "to d
serve the laws of the land, to respect the laws Bed Qs`'
pet of GOD, and to maintain the Protestant RON"
Religion." But, on the obligations of this oath, it
been said by one side that they are so strict that
cannot be relaxed, and by those on the other side
they are not binding on the M-narch in his legawi
capacity. My own opinion is that the Monarch ca
by his Coronation Oath, give his consent to any la
which he believes in his conscience to be detrimesuil
the interests of the Established Church. Nor did Of
gislative enactmetus on the subject stop here. In 1
when the Act of Unioh witli Scotland passed, the
care was taken by the Legislature to exclude feseigao
premacy and to protect the Reformed Protestant agic
*—for by that Act all persons taking office were bona(
take the oath to support the settlement of the LstAbliO.r
Church. A century after that came the Irish Uric..
when the same caution was used for the potectio" i
the Church ; in fine, there is not one national comp".
entered into since the Reformation, in which il ";
not been expressly provided, that the Esobli'h,;
Church should be indissolubly unitei with the 607."
merit. As to the laws declaring the abolition "i_
supremacy.of the Pope over the affairs of this kingdw!
I am aware that the Hon. Baronet holds they stentoo
to the abolition of his spiritual and ecclesiastical sir
macy—that the temporal supremacy of the Pope Is:
a .bugbear, and that he claims over the Catholics
these kingdoms only a spiritual dominatitm. Is :
No; and any person who wilt look into the laws .
see that more than spiritual power was claimed b 1,.!
foreign Potentate ; and that the objects et allot 1...
was to exclude all domination claimed by the Cor,
Rome. This appears even from a law vetting lir,
land
dst
hrealducbteaennt Kali:gay,
ainsuwb
jlereicthtnitdwieasKriencsitsedol, si,liigF,
and -that .the claims of the Court of Rome to ew, 9
power in England were unlawful anti inadrels"'.
s
and ought not to be submitted to. Vs ooij our
_
cestors have enacted those laws if the pewero
not been claimed by the Court of Rome, 01'.
110
temporal supremacy was a mere bugbear?
the the act of premunire have been passed in thoscuw