ings in favour of the Catholics, said, in conclusion, I shall rest their case principally upon this point: can any man sincerely and solemnly affirm, that he believes the safety of the state requires the continuance of the present system? Let that man, and that man only, vote against the present motion.

Other persons spoke for and against the present motion; at length, the House having been cleared, amidst numerous cries for the question, there appeared, Ayes, 241; Noes, 243: Majority against the Motion, 2.

In the House of Lords, on May 17th, the Earl of Donoughmore rose, in pursuance to notice given, to call their lordships' attention to the petitions, praying for relief to the Roman Catholics; and in furtherance of this object, he submitted to their lordships a resolution to the effect that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider the state of the laws which inflict civil disabilities on account of religious opinions, particularly in so far as those laws deprive his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of the exercise of their civil rights; and in how far it may be expedient to alter or modify the same. The earl then entered into a consideration of the manner in which the Catholics were still fettered; and he said, if the House went into the committee, he should propose, in the first place, the repeal or modification of the declaration oath, a great part of which amounted to a denial of doctrines, held, by those who believed them, to be the great truths of the Christian religion; and in the second place,

to obtain the repeal of the oath of abjuration. The oath of supremacy, he thought, might remain. He concluded by moving the resolution stated in the beginning of his speech.

The Bishop of Worcester strongly declared against the claims of the Catholics, and protested against bringing them within one single step of putting their church in the place of the establishment.

The Bishop of Norwich held the opposite opinions; and said that it was the duty of the House to let England cease from this day forward to be the only country in Europe where intolerance was established by law, where religious opinions excluded from civil office, and where men were obliged to surrender their rights for the sake of their conscience.

The Bishop of Peterborough asserted that it was not merely on account of any difference in abstract opinions between the petitioners and themselves, that they thought their religion a ground of exclusion; but because opinions, abstract in themselves, are coupled with other opinions which are not so. Having considered this question in reference to the state, he next considered it in reference to the church, and dwelt with some force upon the dangers which might attend it under a papal establishment.

The Lord Chancellor thought that in the present question, the real point at issue was, not what would satisfy the Catholic alone, but what would or ought to satisfy the Protestant. What security by oath could the Catholics give which could recon

cile the king's supremacy in things temporal, with the pope's supremacy in things ecclesiastical? To him it appeared, that out of all the plans proposed to parliament since the commencement of these discussions, none of them were practicable; because, if we were to believe the recorded history of the country from 1660 to 1688, it would be seen how systematically the the Roman Catholics pursued the accomplishment of their own objects, and the destruction of the national church. If the House looked to the sentiments which were avowed and expressed by the Catholic church during the whole reign of Charles the 2nd, it would see the necessity of the present disqualifications, and how strongly that necessity was impressed on the minds of the whole nation. At the latter part of the two periods alluded to, it was resolved that this country should have a Protestant king, a Protestant parliament, and a Protestant government. Such was the great principle parliament ought always to have in view, holding in due reverence that right of all men derived to them from God, that they should not be persecuted for religious opi

nions.

After a considerable range through various sentiments, his lordship said, that he should be tray his duty to his sovereign, who by law ought to be a Protestant, to the people, who were Protestants, to the two Houses of Parliament, who by law ought to be Protestants, were he not decidedly to oppose such motions as that brought by the noble

earl, unless the Catholics were, in the first instance, to declare and prove that they had renounced those doctrines which rendered their admission to a full participation of the rights of their fellow subjects, dangerous to the tranquillity of the state.

Earl Grey, who had already made up his mind to the support of the noble earl who was the mover of the question, said, that in due deference to the noble and learned lord's authority, he felt it incumbent on him to contest some of the points which that lord had endeavoured to establish in support of his own opinions. What, he said, was the meaning of the expression, that the constitution established at the Revolution was essentially and fundamentally Protestant? He, himself, could find no other meaning than that it was not contained in the great charters of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement. If, however, it could be shown that they were securities established, not at the Revolution, but at periods previous and subsequent to that event; if none of them were ingrafted in those acts which formed the charter of our constitution; if it could be proved that they arose from particular circumstances and the exigences of particular times, then the whole of the noble and learned lord's argument would fall to the ground.

The first of the acts to which he had referred was the Corporation Act, passed in the first year after the Restoration. The object of this act was, not the exclusion of the Catholics, who, at that period, had seats in parlia

ment,

ment, but the exclusion of persons who had been supporters of Cromwell, who had contributed to overturn the constitution. The next was the Test Act, passed in the 25th of Charles 2nd. Undoubtedly that act was directed against the Catholics, but chiefly against the duke of York, the presumptive heir of the crown, and known to be of the Catholic religion. Then came the 30th of Charles 2nd, of the origin of which it is notorious, that it was a consequence of the plots of Oates and Bedloe. This act was passed, not as the noble and learned lord described as emanating from the deliberate wisdom and prospective caution of parliament, but for the purpose of excluding one class of the king's subjects from the rights and privileges, which until that period they had enjoyed. Such were the laws passed previous to the Revolution, all of them founded on particular circumstances which no longer existed. It was true that our ancestors, after the expulsion of James, retained those laws, and added others of a more severe tenor; but let their lordships look at the causes which induced them so to act. The king had taken refuge with, and received assistance from, the greatest Catholic sovereign in Europe. He was supported by a number of partizans in this country, of whom the largest proportion were Catholics. Our ancestors, wisely deviating as little as possible from the principle of hereditary succession, had established the succession in the line of the exiled monarch's daughters. Added to that, was the belief entertained by

the great men by whom the Revolution was effected, of the deceitful character of the Catholic religion, and of the abhorrent nature of their tenets. In all these circumstances would be seen the cause of laws so contrary to the spirit which produced the Revolution. The necessity for those laws no longer existing, the policy which induced our ancestors to pass them could no longer be urged for their continuance; but the policy which induced them to declare that the English were free, required that freedom should be extended to the Catholics, now that no cause remained for withholding it.

The earl then deviated into a close attack upon the principles avowed by the Chancellor, in which he did not forget a defence of the system of Locke, in whom he found the friend of justice, benevolence, and freedom. He ended his speech, with noticing the present dangers which threatened our security; and he asked, why is Ireland to be left a continued prey to that system of proscription from whence so much alarm and danger has been felt through the empire? Was it any thing less than madness to suffer such dangers to accumulate, and not, when the opportunity presented itself, to take the certain means to allay present discontent, and provide future security.

The Earl of Liverpool, who succeeded to the last speaker, found little to add to the attacks made by the Chancellor and other opposers of the Catholic claims. He fully subscribed to that system which maintained itself by a Protestant religion, with a Pro

testant

testant monarchy, and a Protestant parliament.

The remaining speakers, comprising the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Westmoreland, the Earl of Carnarvon, the Duke of Wellington, and the Earl of Darnley, made little addition to the arguments used by the speakers which had preceded them. The question was then loudly called for, which gave, Contents Proxies

Not Contents Proxies ...

70

36 -106

97

. 50 -147 Majority against the Motion, 41. On May 25th, Earl Grey rose, to submit to their lordships a bill to relieve Roman Catholics from taking the declaratory oaths against Transubstantiation and the Invocation of Saints. He presumed, that no obstacle would be opposed to the passing of this bill, which did not in the least interfere with any securities which some noble lords thought ought to be required of Roman Catholics. It merely affected certain dogmatic opinions, and had no reference whatever to any question of supremacy, political or spiritual. He then presented a bill for abrogating so much of the Acts of the 25th and 30th of Charles 2nd as prescribes to all officers civil and military, and to members of both Houses of parliament, a Declaration against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Invocation of Saints.

The Bill was read a first time. On the 10th of June, Earl Grey said, that the bill the second reading of which he rose to move,

would, he hoped, have met with the general concurrence of their lordships. That hope was founded on the reasonableness, as it appeared to him, of the bill itself, and the admission that doctrines of faith were not a ground for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the enjoyment of the advantages of the British constitution. But he was told, from an authority which he could not doubt, that his bill was to be met with a most determined opposition. His lordship entered with much ability into a discussion respecting the intended attack; but it will probably be more to the purpose, to consider the resolutions of a body of men against the bill in question, on which he was told that a petition was to be founded.

The first resolution stated, "That the British constitution and government are essentially and fundamentally Protestant, and the Protestant religion forms the great security of the public happiness and welfare of this country, as established and secured by a solemn national compact at the period of the Revolution, and by the acts of the legislature which happily settled the crown of these realms upon his majesty's august family." The second resolution mentioned, "That being sensible of the religious and political blessings enjoyed under the sway of the royal house of Brunswick, and convinced that upon the maintenance of that compact, and of those acts of settlement; the safety of his majesty's person and government; the continuance of the monarchy of England; the preserva

tion of the Protestant religion in all its integrity; the maintenance of the church of England, as by law established; the security of the ancient and undoubted rights and liberties; and the future peace and tranquillity of this kingdom; do, under God, entirely depend; this meeting is filled with alarm when the least attempt is made to abrogate any of the laws, or subvert any of the securities, by which those inestimable privileges are held." 3rd, They profess, "that by the wise policy of our ancestors, Roman Catholics were excluded from bearing certain offices and from the legislature and councils of the nation; and by stat. 39, Charles 2nd, it was enacted, that no peer of the realm, or member of the House of Commons should vote or sit in parliament, until he take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration against transubstantiation and popery." The 4th resolution stated, "that the meeting has been informed, that a bill has been brought into parliament, and is now in progress, in which it is proposed, that the declaration against transubstantiation required by the statute 25, Charles 2nd, and the declaration against transubstantiation and popery, required by the statute 30, Charles 2nd, shall no longer be required to be taken as a qualification for holding any office or place of trust from his majesty, or under his authority, or for sitting or voting in either House of parliament; provided, that nothing therein should dispense any person from taking the oaths of allegiance or supremacy." The fifth resolution was as follows: "That

although the said declarations against transubstantiation and popery contain only a renunciation of certain opinions entertained by Roman Catholics, yet they form, in the opinion of this meeting, the principal test by which Roman Catholics are to be ascertained, and without which, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy are not sufficient to exclude Roman Catholics from parliament, and from situations of political power." The sixth resolution represented, "that the Catholics regarded certain oaths as null and void, and affirmed that the Pope had himself, a few years ago, published a proclamation to his subjects, wherein he authorized them to take a distinction between active and passive oaths." In the seventh it was asserted, "that the Romish church granted no toleration to those who did not participate in its communion; and that therefore there could be no peace or security for those who professed a different creed."

It may be supposed, that several of the allegations brought forwards in this declaration were severely commented on by the mover of the bill; and the accession of Lord Grenville to the Catholic side was an important addition, which seemed to make a powerful impression on the House. When, however, a division of the House was declared, it appeared that the numbers were kept steady to their party. It stood thus: