Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1901-09-30

rites of the church of England and
subscribe the declaration against
ransubstantiation" This act though
aimed at Roman Catholics, was equal
| ly operative against dissenters, and
it was not repealed, as is we'll known,
till 1928. The declaration, therefore,
was an incident in an episode of great
| Importance, limited, however, to par
| ticular crisis in our history.
We may infer, consequently, that
| the original justification of that spe-
| cial section of the bill of rights was
| to exclude the possibility of Roman
| Catholic successor to the throne. 1t
might, however, have been thought
! that sufficient precaution against such
an occurrence was provided by the
ninth section, which we need hardly
say is, with the rest of the bill of
| rights, still operative. 1t runs as fol-
| lows: AS it has been found by expert
| ence inconsistent with the safety and
welfare of this Protestant kingdom to
| be governed by a Popish prince, or by
| any king or queen marrying Papist,
| it is enacted that all persons who shall
| hold communion with the Church of
Rome or who shall marry a Papist,
shall be excluded from the throne, and
! the crown shall descend to the next
heir"
Although public opinion in this coun-
| try has approved with practical
unanimity the abolition of tests, it
may he safely averred that there is no
appreciate portion of the population
which would approve of any interior
ence with the protestant succession.
Therefore the simple issue remains
whether it is not possible to safe
guard all that the act of settlement
secured without, causing the sover-
/ eign to take declaration the wording
| of which gives offense to millions of
| his subjects. Thelord chancellor seems
| to us to have taken too exclusively a
| lawyers view of the situation. He
| demurred to the view that tests were
no longer necessary and asserted that
| sit was not in accordance with the
constitution or the practice of this
country"
| Lord Grey, however, had contended
with admirable justice that before he
was crowned the sovereign was re-
quired solemnly to swear that he
would govern according to the statutes,
maintain the laws of God and truth,
and the Protestant religion as estab-
| lished by law, and he was required
| to seal his oath with the most sacred
| form of conservation that the church
provided" If that assurance be not
considered sufficiently binding, surely
Iall that is requisite is supplied by the
act of settlement of 1900, which enacts
that whatsoever shall hereafter come
to the possession of this crown shall
| join in communion with the Church
of England, as by law established"
Fenced in as the throne is with all
these safeguards the declaration
would appear to be altogether super
| f1uous, especially when we consider, as
Earl Grey pointed out, that no such
test is opposed upon any sovereign in
Europe. All reverent persons will
agree with Lord Rosebery that moth
ing could be less suited for Parlia-
mentary debate than the lawful mys-
teries contained in the declaration"
Yesterdays discussion in the house of
lords will have served very useful
purpose if it leads to what seemed
the obvious sense Of the house, and the
declaration should be dropped alto
gether when the bill based upon the
report of the committee is brought in.
The archbishops made a grievance
of the absence of any member of the
Episcopal bench from the committee,
but the bishops ought to be thankful
that they were spared very embar-
RAISING function. The question as to
whether there should or should not
be declaration is political rather
than theological, and an attempt to
draw up a suitable form of words
might have landed the rulers of the
Church in domestic controversy
which would certainly have brought,
not peace, but sword, into the es-
tablishment-Londo Telegraph, July
49,.