of the Church of England admitting persons into parliament and offices who did not acknowledge the king's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, though they had sworn that the king had that supremacy,

and so it would remain after this act was passed, if it continued in its present form. A right reverend prelate had that evening said, and said very truly, in the notion of a Protestant bishop that we were all members of the Christian-he would ask, if such conduct manichurch. If the right rev. prelate would fested any purity or sincerity-if such allow him, he would ask, respectfully, conduct was likely to reconcile his fellowwhether the declaration, that the Protes- subjects,-his injured fellow-subjects, to tant Church of England was a branch of them? Would this take away the appethe Christian church, and the members tite for tithes, because tithes were the of it members of the Christian church, means of supporting the church? Would had ever been made by the Roman Catho- this be calculated to increase the veneralic church? If that was inserted into the tion of the people for the church? He oath to be taken under this bill by the would maintain, not that the subject was Roman Catholics, there would be some- a political one-not that it was a religious thing admitted by them. Who ever found one-but that it was both. As a political that the professors of the Roman Catholic subject, it had maintained our civil and religion admitted any such thing as that religious liberties,-not because all acts the Protestant church was a branch of the of parliament had declared that it had, Christian church, or its members members but because the fact was so; and it had of the Christian church? If they would not only maintained our civil and religious admit that into the oath, it would be a liberties, but it had produced also those very great satisfaction to him; but if they moral and religious feelings, which had looked at the proceedings that had taken distinguished this country above all the place, and the doctrines lately preached nations of the earth, and made the Engin Ireland, every noble lord must see, that lish people patterns of moral and religious if such a passage were admitted into the conduct to the whole 'christian world. oath, the Roman Catholics would not Another objection he felt was this. He much admire the bill. By this bill Catho- did not object to some offices being open lics were not required to admit the supre- to the Catholics; but he did object to macy of the Crown in ecclesiastical mat- their being admitted to seats in parliament, ters; but let their lordships look at their and to offices in which they would have to history, their constitution, their acts of discharge any important duties in the exeparliament, and their law books, and tell cutive part of the government of the counhim, if the supremacy of the Crown, in try. They had been told, that the excepmatters ecclesiastical, was not a material tions in the bill were quite large enough. part of the British constitution. He beg- They had been told too, that it was imged their lordships to think indulgently possible to describe a First Lord of the of him, who had sworn over and over Treasury, or a Secretary of State, or inagain-aye, forty times-that his majesty deed any body else in the cabinet. A had this supremacy. He begged of them cabinet, it was true, was a body of indivito think indulgently of him, if he could duals, all agreeing sometimes, sometimes not presume to take away a supremacy, all disunited, and sometimes all wonderwhich had been recognized as an in- fully converted; and if there were no way disputable right of the Crown, ever since of describing them individually, surely the reign of Edward the Confessor. He there could be no difficulty in describing could not, he would not-break the oath them collectively. Would not the words he had so taken. Those who took ano-"Privy Council" include them all? He ther view of the subject might be acting should be acting improperly if he went as honestly as he was, but they must through all the clauses of the bill, and allow him to follow the dictates of his own offered all those considerations to their conscience. Whether that right were in lordships which might be brought forward the Crown or not, he had sworn that it on the third reading. He had no hesita was; and having so sworn, he would tion in admitting, that, on a late occasion, maintain it. It was in vain to talk of the he did not like to oppose himself, under Established Church being supported by the influence of a teasing gout, to the for the purity of its doctrines, and the since- midable alliance which was formed by rity of its pastors. He asked, if bishops those who took different views on this

these different Acts, the Papists are to take one Oath, and the Protestants another. If I heard the noble and learned lord right, he asserted that we were now, for the first time, about to admit the Catholics to hold office. This is to me quite unintelligible, unless there be some parliamentary meaning attributed to an Oath that I never heard of out of parliament. If that be not the case, the conclusion of the noble and learned lord is to me quite unintelligible. When I filled that Chair of Regius Professor, to which he has alluded, had any of my pupils drawn such a conclusion, I should have thought that they had rejected logic from their studies.

The Earl of Eldon said, he had never made use of the expression, that all popery was idolatry; nor had he said, that the Roman Catholic Church was not a Christian Church, which the rev. prelate had also imputed to him. All he had said was, that he wished to know if the Catholics would admit the Church of England to be a Christian Church. As to the Act of 1791, and the other Acts to which the right rev. prelate had alluded, he passed over them now; but he believed he should be able to deal with them in a satisfactory manner when he came to address their lordships finally on this subject.

as it deserves. I say again, that the in- I on taking office, are called on to deny the vocation of saints is idolatrous-that the ecclesiastical authority of the pope? By sacrifice of the mass is idolatrous; but I do not say, that the whole of the Roman Catholic religion is idolatry. If the noble and learned lord says that the Roman Catholic religion is one mass of idolatry, I deny the fact. I am not so young as to take my Protestantism from the noble and learned lord; and I am not now to learn what are the differences between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches. The Roman Catholic church believes in the Eternity of God-it recognises our Saviour Jesus Christ-it acknowledges the Trinity, the Holy Incarnation and the Atonement, and the whole means of Grace. It possesses all these true doctrines; but it has added to them, and it has thereby defaced the fair and beautiful form of Christianity. Among those additions are the invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass. But these tenets are not Protestant; and though they detract from the merit of the Roman Catholic church, they do not take that church out of the pale of Christianity. The noble and learned lord has repeated his charge, over and over again, in a manner calculated to produce much mischief. I assert that I never said the invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, were not idolatrous. I did say that all papistry is not idolatry. I did not say that that doctrine was not the doctrine of a Christian establishment. The church of Rome is corrupt. I know it, and acknowledge it. But, on what will the Church of England rely, if the Roman Catholic Church be totally corrupt. I have now done with the noble and learned lord's remarks on the two churches and on the idolatry; and I pass to what he says concerning the Oath. If I understood the noble and learned lord right, he stated, that the Oath of Supremacy denies also all regal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and all political power, to any other power in these realms, than that of the sovereign, and that we cannot allow the Catholics to have offices without a violation of our Oath. Has the noble and learned lord then forgotten the Irish Act of 1777, the English Act of 1778, the English Act of 1791, and the Scotch Act of 1793, by which Papists are required by law to deny, as a necessary condition of holding office, that the pope has any temporal power in these realms, while the English Protestants,

The Lord Chancellor said :-It appears to me, that in the course which the noble and learned lord has taken, he has been again discussing the principle of the measure. It will, I am sure, be seen by your lordships, how extremely desirable it is that we should confine ourselves to the particular clause before us. For four successive days we have been discussing the principle of the measure; and if the noble and learned lord wishes to discuss it again, he will have many other opportunities, without choosing a time so inconvenient as this is; and I think, my lords, that I shall best discharge my duty by directing your attention to the particular clause before us. Some of the observations of the noble lord, however, I cannot allow to pass without notice. It was with the greatest astonishment that I heard him say, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland did not consider the Church of England as a part of the Christian Church. I am astonished that a person of the noble lord's

research, and industry, and vigilance, I he take that oath. The noble and learned who must have known that members lord, however, has lost all recollection of of that church had been examined before this act; although at this moment, and a committee of your lordships, did not he knows it, it screens the Catholics from refer to the evidence taken before that the horrible severity of the penal laws. committee, for authorities which would Now, my lords, are we to be overborne support his assertion if true, and which by the talent, the learning, and the name would prevent his making it if it were of the noble and learned lord, who comes incorrect. Among other members of the down here and deals with subjects of so Church of Rome in Ireland, examined much importance in this way? How before that committee was Dr. Doyle, stands the case? Persons are now admitwho stated, in terms most distinct and ted to certain offices, rights, and priviprecise, that he did consider ours to be a leges, upon taking this oath. Does this Christian Church. To prevent any mis- infringe any principle of the constitution? take on this subject, I have sent for the Is this a violation of any moral duty? book. Dr. Doyle here says, "I look No. It has been the law for many years. upon the Established Church in two Every body approves of it. Well, then, lights as a Christian community, and as what does the bill before us do? It does a Corporation possessed of extensive but extend those privileges; it merely revenues. For the purity of the doctrines allows a greater community of privileges. it professes I esteem it more than any When we get rid of the obscurity in which other church, except my own." I repeat, it is so industriously sought to envelop my lords, that I am perfectly astonished the subject-when we detach from it the that the noble and learned lord should revered name of lord Hale-who, by the come down here and endeavour to uphold way, is speaking in quite a different view assertions the most confident, but at the when we do this, really, my lords, the same time utterly unfounded. It is true objection is too extravagantly absurd to that we swear and the noble lord says be entertained by any reasonable man. he has sworn forty times--that "no foreign The question before your lordships now prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, is, "Will you repeal certain oaths and hath, or ought to have, any temporal, or declarations, which are now required as spiritual, or ecclesiastical power within qualifications for seats in parliament, and this realm."" And how," says the noble for admission to offices?" "When we come and learned lord, "am I to fulfil the obli- to the clause which contains the excep gations of this Oath, if I admit a body of tions, we shall find the proper opportunity persons in this country, who acknowledge for considering these exceptions. any foreign spiritual power. How can clause before you is a necessary prelimiI take this Oath under such circumstan-nary to the rest of the bill. The object ces?" I answer-that it is not for me to reconcile this to him: it is not for me to mediate between the oath and the noble and learned lord's conscience. The law so stands and he has taken the oath notwithstanding. By the law, persons are allowed to acknowledge foreign power in spiritual matters; and with the knowledge of this law, the noble and learned lord has taken an oath, which he now finds it difficult to reconcile with that fact. In 1791, a period to which the noble and learned lord will not direct his attention, an act was framed by a noble and learned lord (Redesdale), and that act contains an oath on which the terms of the oath in the bill before us is founded. The noble and learned earl must know, that not a single Catholic can enjoy any rights or privileges, without being subject to the infliction of the penal code, unless

The

of the bill is to admit Catholics to parlia ment and to offices; but the acts which stand in their way at present must be first repealed. We are now upon the clauses, and not upon the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill has been already carried by a very large majority; and if we debate it now we shall only waste our time. I have made these obs servations upon the oath, merely in answer to what has fallen from the noble and learned lord, and not because this is a proper time to say any thing about the oath, to which we have not yet come. Do your lordships think, that these oaths and declarations ought to be repealed; with certain exceptions, which we shall come to consider presently, and determine whether those exceptions ought or ought not to be extended? This is the question, the only question, before your lordships;