Star.
London, England, 1819-06-11 00:00:00

. I,

1,,
10#
1 i
~
! ,

"'
\

scriiStion of Christiatts; they were willing to take the
important, Oath of Supremacy ; and in justice they
should be put tvn an equal footing with other de-
scriptiotis of Di&nters. The remaining Tests would
be abundantly sufficient for all political considera-"
tions; and by an acquiescence in the present measure
the Catholic would be relieved from much oppro-
brium "and the Protestant Dissenter from dime un-
just fetters which still pressed, upon them, with re-
spect to tests purely religious. They should not stop
,where, they were, but still go on in the beneficial
work of concession, which would best lead the way
to that final and healing adjustment with respect to
religious exclusion, which unavoidahly they would
have to come to at last. The Noble Earl then moved
the second reading of the Bill for abrogating the
Tests imposed by the Acts of the 25th and 30th of
his Majesty King Charles the Second.
The Bishop of NORWICH rose, he said, with
peculiar satisfaction, to second the motion of the
Noble Earl. He contended, that it was unjust to
proscribe five millions of loyal subjects, because cer-
tain persons pretended that they knew the principles
of the Roman Catholics better than they did them-
selves. It was the duty of a good man to seek for
the truth ; and in pursuing it, would he not rather
be guided by the repeated declarations of the per-
sons themselves, than the accounts of other men. It
had been often his Lordship's lot to hear the Catho-
lics charged with what they often hive unequivocally
disclaimed. He would not now enter upon topics
which had been already so ably discussed. He could
not, however, avoid making a few remarks, which
he assured their Lordships he was prompted to do,
rather by a motive of duty than with a view to turn
that House into a Divinity School. And first, as to
the declaration against Transubstantiation, he must
observe, that he never heard it recited without the
most unpleasant of sensations—self-reproach. Were
it not, indeed, fur the glorious uncertainty of the law,
and the plastic nature of its terms, he believed, there
were a great many Noble Lords in that House who
would have felt some strong misgivings before they
took the Transubstantiation Oath. Such a declara-
tion he declared was unworthy of a rational man,
much less of a Christian, and ought to be abolislecd.
When he professed this sentiment, he thought it
would be unreasonable to impute to him a wish to
arraign the law. Were they who voted for the abo-
lition of the Statute De Combureride llrcretice, and
the laws relating to witchcraft, accused of arraigning
the law? Was that eloquent and enlightened lawyer,
who a short time since strewed the necessity of cor-
recting the state of our Criminal Law, reproached
with a wish to arraign the law, because he wished to
expunge from the, criminal code those barbarisms
which now disgraced it, and whose labours would be
rewarded by the applause of all good men:—

" thud tisn:o si r.equeo defendere Ciiman cum tat.to com-
mune viro."—'Hear, Hew, Near.)
—The Reverend Prelate then said the question was
not, how old the law was? Time 'did not justify
What was bad. He thought the Sacramental Test,
the most unexceptionable of all. An Act of Parlia-
ment, he said, could not alter the nature-Of our ob-
ligations to Gon; and it was lamentable to think
that an article of Divine Faith should be made the
means of climbing to Political Power.—(Hear.)—
He, with at old Poet, had the strongest objection to
this Church and State union—
" To make the Symbol of atoning Grace,
"An eke-key, apicliods, to—a place!"
—He solemnly implored the house, therefore, to re-
peal those Acts,.which, in lis.own opinion, as well as
in the opinions of abler men, had been too long suf-
fered to disgrace our Statute-Book.—(llcar, henr.)—
lie differed widely from those who considered the
Test Acts as the bulwark of the Conttitution ; he,
on the contrary, thought them the excrescences and
deformities which had grown upon its surface, and
which were as offensive to the eye as they were dis-
gra:eful to the character of the, age.—(llear, Hear.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that
the object of the Bill was to remove, by a single
stroke of a pen, those Acts that formed an insur-
mountable obstacle to the admission of the Catholics
to seats ,in the Legislature ; and if Catholics sat in
the House of Lords at the time of the passing of the
30th of Charles 11. it then appeared that the Oath of
Supremacy was not sufficient to exclude them from
Parliament. An experiment had formerly been made,
and failed, of a Catholic King and a Protestant Par-
liament. An attempt was then made to have a Pro-
testant King and a Catholic House of Lords and
Commons. He felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.

, ..
Lord LIVERPOOL stated, that it would be un-
necessary for him to enter at much length into the
question, as in many of the principles laid down by
the Noble Lord he entirely concurred. For himself,
he had always supported the Corporation and Test
Acts, and was unable to see what objection a con-
scientious Protestant could have to subscribe the de-
claration against Transubstantiation. The present
attempt was a preliminary to repeal all the Statutes
operating against the Catholics, and on that account
he should oppose it. He agreed with the Noble
Earl, , that the repeal of the Acts in question would
not open the doors of Parliament to the Catholics ;
and in that case he would ask what would be the use
of the enactment in question ? If the matter were
to rest here, the point, as a principle of feeling,
might be conceded to the Catholics. But would that
be the case, and would the advocates of the Catlio.
licsiabstain from a further discussion of their claims?
Laffiat case, the concession sought, so far from being
beneficial, might be productive of much mischief.
1-4 tra,s old enough to recollect when, for slum Ses-
the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
f i rlb
si‘d o tber principal subject of discussion; and the
in question were defended, not so much from a
vi . to their actual and practical operation, as from
th forming an invincible bulwark, should ever the
Chesrch be seriously attacked.
. Lord GRENVILLE.took a different view of this
qtes'il to that which the Noble Earl had taken ;
there were no grounds for thinking- that Catholics
fr had eve* sat in the House of Commons between the
sth o Elizabeth and the reign of Charles 11. when
Catho is Peers were excluded from Parliament. Peers
did not sit in•Parllament, during that period, by any
evasion of oaths ot laws, but by a legal right, there
being no power to administer such oaths to them ;
and he now asked upon.what 'grounds we at present
continued to press their exclusion, in the face of the
immortal services which therand their ancestors had
performed for the country ?-.:lt might be that a ma

might conscientiously believe in the levdeation of the
Virgin and of Images, and yet deny the supremacy
of the Pope.. It was the milfortune of the Catholics, ,
that we took the description .of the Catholic' tenets
oily from their •tiversaries. We were told that they
'held a divided iffiegiance ; .but in all his intercourse
with Catholics, and that intercourse had been widely
extended, he had never found one who would bear
to be told that he professed a divided allegiance, and
.net a true allegiance to the King. What was true
allegiance? Why it was obedience to the King in
all his lawful commands, in his Courts of Justice, in
his Legislature, and, in fact, in all matters in which
he might by the Law and Constitution, command ;
and in this obedience the Catholic swore in terms'
precisely the same as his Majesty's other subjects did ,
and he trusted there was not a man in the country
who did not pay that allegiance ; but there was no
law which said the King, even in • his Parliament,
should command his subjects as to the religioai faith
they should profess. If, indeed, he were asked what,
is his opinion, would be his act if he were to wor-
ship the Mass, he should say that in him it would be
an act of idolatry to worship the creature as the
CREATOR ; but the Catholic might conscientiously
de so. The first object of the State at this day ought
to be to unite, if not in the same faith, all the People
in the same political and civil rights ; and he would
ask now, after all the slanders and calumnies which
had been uttered for years against the Roman Catho-
lics, if there was any man existing who would lay'
his hand on his heart and say that the religion of
Fenelon was idolatry ? In us, who professed a dif-
ferent faith, it would be idolatry ; but in a true Ca-
tholic it was pure religion ; and if they truly pro-
fessed the Catholic faith, they could not take the
oaths that were required ; and it must be of the
most pernicious and dangerous tendency, for the I
people thus to see the Legislature trifling with re-
ligious professions of faith ; and thus making
.ap-
peals to the Crertor in oaths contrary to the religious
faith and belief of those who were obliged to take
them. One of the Prelates of our Church, Bishop
Herring, had declared, that although the sacrifice of
the mass was unfit for us, yet it was not idolatrous.
And Bishop Burnet, in his history, informs us, that
Archbishop Sheldon had the same opinion. At pre-
sent we professed that to exclude any man on dif •
fcrences wholly religions, was unjustifiable--.litit on
the present occasion it was said. that there was a dif-
ference of political opinion among the Catholics,
which called for their exclusion, independent of reli-
gious belief. He would reply to this, that the Ca-
tholics bad none of those political differences, but
that he was ready to profess and to give to the Mo-
narch all that duty and obedience which any of the
most dutiful and obedient subjects could give. What
could be the opinion of the Catholics Olen they
found us disclaiming any intentionofercluding them
on religious principles, yet offering, as the price of
their admission to civil right an oath, which consis-
tent with their religious belief, they could not take )1
He hoped, however, when it should be known that
all the objections to the Catholics rested on the so,
phistry of obedience and supremacy, they would ring
that there were words which they could conscientiously
adopt, which must be taken as full supremacy. The
Noble Lord then adverted to the objections made to
entertaining the Catholic Claims in any shape. If a
Committee was proposed then, it was said this is too
general, let us have a specific measure. If a specific
measure was proposed, then a Committeeand a general
measure was immediately called for. He concluded
by giving his full support to the motion.
•The LORD CHANCELLOR, on this occasion,
was again called on to stand forward in thedischarge
of his duty, in support of a 'Protestant King and a,
Protestant Church ; and ip doing so he felt it to be his
duty to oppose this motion. lie was certain this
measure, if adopted, would give great alarm to the
Protestants. He gave the same credit to the Catho-
lic religion, and to the Catholic's religious opinions,
as he did to his own. Gon forbid he should not ;
but yet his duty commanded him to stand forward
in Iris place in Parliament and take that course which
he considered the safety of the Protestant Establish-
ment
called for. lie must always consider undi-
vided allegiance to be indispensible to that object.—
By the Act of Supremacy, the country was delivered
from a most abject submission to a foreign Power,
as appeared from the recital and the preamble to the
Act ; that had been followed rip by the Act of Eliza-
beth, and then came the Acts of Charles 11. If the
country required such Statutes, was it ever heard of
that they should be repealed, because they might be
incidentally abused. James 11. had no objection to take
the Coronation Oath, though it bound him to the
suppc.rt of the Protestant religion. The first Act of a
King, when he came into the House of Peers, was
to take the Declaration proposed to be repealed, and
that was a plat of the compact made with the new
Sovereign at the Revolution. He denied that all this
was asked for the sake of religion ; for the Law and
Constitution required that the Test, and the Oath of
Supremacy, should be taken, to chew a man to be
a Protestant. In order that no man who was a Pa-,
pist should sit in that House, the Patriots, who es.
tablished the Constitution, enacterl a declaration to
be taken by all who came to that table to be sworn,.
which could leave no doubt whether a man was a
Papist or protestant. This, -therefore, was a religious
test of political opinion, which was held by Doctor
Paley to be the best test on such matters. Ile be-
lieved the Revolution had secured civil and religious
liberty on the best possible footing ; and if the secu-
rities of both were taken away, by agreeing to this
measure, they would establish Catholic Emancipa-
tion at once. As they regarded the liberties of the
land, its civil and religious institutions, let them not
chew thetnselves unpardonable in the eyes of poste-
rity, by handing those valuable privileges impaired
to their successors..

The/ Earl of HARROWBY combated the argu-
ments of his Noble and Learned Friend, as they ten-
ded to shew that Catholics were only excluded on
the grouad of their religion. It had been said that
the declaration against 'I ransubstantiation was only a
religious test of •political opinions, but why should
such a test be required, when other tests of an en-
tirely political nature and of the most satisfactory
description were previously given? With respect to
the declaration that the worship of the Church of
Rome was idolatrous, he could not join in it. He
was ready to allow that the practice of the lower and
uneducated orders in praying to the Saints might be
idolatrous ; but if he looked to the doctrine of• the

Romish Church on that point, as settled by the
Council of Trent, he could not conscientiously say
that it was idolatrous, altbougk he might consider it
improper
Earl BATHURST contended, that the Oath of
Supremacy was not scient to exclude Roman Ca-
' tholics from the House of Commons. The declara-
tion against Transubitantiation had been added to
'accomplish that object. But the present Bill went
further than the repeal of that Declaration, and laid a
foundation for repealing the Oath of Supremacy. On
these grounds he should vote against the measure.
Eel GREY replied at considerable length. Ile
would not follow the Noble and Learned Lord
•through the various caurse of argument which he
had adopted ; but he felt the imperious necessity of
utterly disclaiming the motives which had been at-
tributed to him by the Noble Lord (Batlinrst) who
spoke last, in bringing forward this motion. It had
been declared that the repeal of this oath was inten-
ded by him (Earl (rey) as a step to be taken pre-
paratory to other measures; and more particularly to
the dispensing with the Oaths of Supremacy. If he
could so far degrade himself to use this or any other
measure as a cloak to deceive their Lordships, he
should be unworthy their confidence or attention.
After combating the arguments of the Noble Earl
who preceded him, his Lordship bugged to remind
the opponents' of his motion, of the dangerous ten-
dency of those doctrines which their Lordships had
' advanced, and which went to charge the Church of
Rome with superstitious idolatry. For he considered
that, when speaking of Roman'Cattolics, it was the
heads of that religion who formed, the objects of their
consideration. Their Lordships were r.ot legislating
for a superstitious, crafty Priesthood, or an ignorant
multitude. If we were to allow that all Chris-
tians, previous to the days of Henry the Eighth,
were superstitious idolators, and that four-fifths of
the Christian world were still in the same state,
would it not be said by those who acknowledged
no religion, that the Christian doctrine had rather
been a curse than a blessing to the world ? He
would caution their Lordships from treading on
such dangerous ground. If the tenets of the Church
of Rome were idolatrous, our own were substantially
deficient on the same principle, when we declared
that, « the body and blood of Cultist. were verily,
and indeed taken, by the faithful in the Loan's
Sup-
per." The Noble Earl concluded by entreating their
Lordships, if they considered it necessary to declare
themselves Protestants, to do it at least in terms
which would inflict no insult on the creed of the
Catholics.--The !louse then divided—

Content.
Not Contents

Proxies
l'rucies

- 82
- G 9-141

Majority against the Bill —59
Adjourned at HALF-PAST TWELVE this Moniing.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. S. WORTLRY moved for a Committee bn the Laws
regulating the Stamping of Woollen Cloths.—The motion was
agreed to, and a Conimitteeforthwith appointed.
Mr. S. VORTLEY then presented a Petition from the Trus-
tees of the Linen Hall of Leeds against the Tax on Foreign
Wool.—Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. R. WJI,LIAMS presented a Petition from the band-
holders of Carnarvou, praying for protecting Duties on the Im-
portation of Foreign Corn.—Ordered to Ile on the table.
Mr. Alderman WOOD wished to know from the Chair, if h
was competent to present Petitions afYinst the proposed Taxes
in the present stage of the proceedipps?
The 'SPEAKER said in reply, that he had examined the
Journals on the subject, and found no precedent to warraut Pe-
titions being presented under such circhmstances as the present,
but that it would be for the House to exercise its own dikretion
upon the matter.

Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN brought in the Mock Auction
Prevention Bill.—'Read a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time on-Monday next..

Mr. 1...k818T0N gave notice, that he would take an early
opportunity in the next Session to propose a measure relative to
the Copy-right Act.

Mr:SHIW moved for an Account of the Sums paid by the
hotel-keepers in nublin, in support of the Police Establishment
there, for the last six years.—Ordered.

The Scotch Criminals Bill was brought in, read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow (ibis day).
Ou the Motion of Mr. WALLACE, the House resolved Itself
into a Committee on the Salt Duties' Bill, and the Report was
ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday next.

I!: