Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

necessity of taking the oath of supremacy,
and receiving the sacrament, on their ap
pointment to places, and becoming members
of corporations; but all places in the de
partment of which the executive power and
authority of the state are lodged, and all-
offices in corporations, are yet reserved and
excepted from their grasp, unless they pers
form the usual requisites of all others his
majesty's subjects on their attainment of
such places and offices. The author of the
pamphlet is desirous that these reservations
and exceptions should be repealed, and
styles them a small proportion of the pos
pery code yet remaining it may be ad-'
mitted, that they are small in bulk;
but very great, indeed, they
in importance. On the continuance and
perpetuity of them depend the continuance
and perpetuity of the constitution in church
and state. Are these matters of trifling mo
ment? What commandant of a strong and
important fortress, the chief defence of a
kingdom, would be justified in the surrender
of it to a cruel, merciless, and unrelenting
enemy, because it was deemed advisable, for
the better defence of the place, to slight
some weak and unimportant outwork, and
permit the foe to possess themselves of it ?→→
The author, after the preceding train of rea-
soning, seems to abandon it all for the pur

are:

what punishnrent is too great for those who would attempt to dispense with the laws of God? Leave such doctrine to romanists and the court of Rome! it is not a protestant doctrine!—It may not be improper to observe here, that in the purest era of the constitution in the reign of William III. the royal assent to bills which had passed both houses of parliament has been more than once refused by the sovereign. In 1693, that king refused his assent to a bill to render all members of the house of commous incapable of places of trust and profit: the commons, in their resolution on that occasion, state that the royal assent had been refused to several public bills, and by that king in particular. [Harris's Life of William III. page 398.-William refused his assent, in 1695, to another bill for the further regulation of elections of members to serve parliament, Ibid. p. 437.-See also Commons' Journals-The author of the pamphlet asserts, that the repeal of all the laws complained of by romanists would not interfere with the church establishment, or with any of its temporal rights and privileges. I trust it has been already proved, that though the present measure, if adopted, would not be immediately attended by the subversion of the present church establishment, yet the subversion of that, as well as of the civil establishment, would be the cer-pose of introducing one conclusive argument tain, and not very remote consequence of such adoption.The author of the pamphlet then puts the following query: "What system of casuistry made it lawful for his majesty to assent to the repeal of the large proportion of penal laws, repealed by the acts of 1732, 1788, and 1793, and now makes it unlawful for him to assent to the repeal of the small proportion of those laws yet remaining unrepealed; or, that made it lawful for him to sanction a partial repeal of the test act in 1782, and makes it unlaw-and 4th of William and Mary, and the 1st ful for him to sanction a total repeal of it in 1801 ? To this question it is answered, that the repeal of the parts of the popery code (which the pamphlet styles penal laws, but which are, in fact, remedial laws only) at the periods mentioned, does not confer any very considerable portion of political power on the Romish sect even in Ireland; and the repeal cannot be followed by consequences subversive of the constitution in church and state; and therefore his majesty might give the royal assent to such repeal consistently with the obligations of his coronation oath. The partial repeal of the test act exempts romunists in Ireland from the

against the obligation of the coronation oath, which he deems irrefragable. "All this* discussion," says he," is superfluous; the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the first of William and Mary; at that time Roman catholic peers had their seats, and voted in the house of lords; Roman catholie commoners were eligible to the house of commons; and all civil and military offices were open to Roman catholics: they were deprived of these rights by the acts of the 3d:

and 2d of queen Anne. Now the coronation oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the act which prescribed it was passed; but the Irish laws meant to be repealed are subsequent to that act; to these laws therefore, or to any similar laws, the coronation path cannot be referred."-Before I expose the absolute er rors in fact in the premises from which the : author deduces his conclusion, I will examine the justice of the conclusion, supposing the premises to be true. The coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary binds : the king "to the utmost of his power to maintain the laws of God, the true profe

[ocr errors]

sion of the Gospel, and the protestant reform-ditable to an Annotator on Coke on Littleed religion established by law." Shortly af- ton to support the cause of his party by the ter the accession of. Willian and Mary, it quibbling of special pleading. It is neceswas deemed necessary to add further fortifi- sary however to make a few remarks ort cations to the established religion' by statute what the author has adduced as facts to sup→ in Ireland. The test and corporation acts port his argument. He states that the coro passed in England in the reign of Charles II. nation oath was fixed in Ireland by the 1st and in the 30th year of the same king's reign, of William and Mary; true it is, it was fixthe act passed enjoining the taking the oath ed as well for England as Ireland, by the of supremacy, and repeating and subscribing English statute of the 1st of William and the declaration, by all members of both Mary; but the author has totally omitted to houses of parliament, previous to their sit- state the additions to the coronation oath ting or voting in either house: by the coro- introduced by the act of union of England nation oath, as settled by the 1st of William and Scotland, the 5th of Anne. By this act and Mary, the king swears, that he will to the king is obliged at his coronation to the utmost of his power maintain the pro- swear (as is already noticed) to maintain testant reformed religion established by law; and preserve invoilably the settlement of the the obligation of this oath extends to Ire-church of England, as specified in that sta→ land, so that he is bound to the utmost of tute, for the unalterable security of that his power to maintain it in Ireland, as well church, and the doctrine, worship, disci as in England, as then established in Eng-pline, and government thereof, as in that land by law; and all the barriers for its statute specified, within the kingdoms of support erected in England previous to the England and Ireland, and the town of Ber 1st of William and Mary. The English wick upon Tweed." The statute particuparliament in the 3d and 4th of William iarly specifies, that the act of uniformity, and Mary passed an act enjoining all mem- and all other acts for the perpetual preser bers of both houses of parliament in Ireland vation of the church of England (among to take the oath of supremacy, and repeat which are the aforesaid English act of the and subscribe the declaration, the parliament 30th of Charles II. enacted for Ireland in of England at that time exercising the power the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and of binding Ireland by its acts; not for the the test and corporation acts), shall be unpurpose of making any addition to, or al- alterable and perpetual. The author was teration in the protestant religion established either ignorant of these additions to the co-> by law in that kingdom, but to give that ronation oath, or designedly omitted them :" establishment an additional security. How if inserted, they would have completely: then does it follow from the premises laid overturned his quibbling argument, that the down by the author of the pamphlet, that king is not bound by his coronation oath, to his present majesty or any future king of resist the repeal of any law for the support Great Britain and Ireland, having taken the of the established church, which was not a aforesaid coronation oath of the 1st of Wil-law at the time the coronation oath was fixJiam and Mary, can, consistently with that oath, consent to the repeal of the aforesaid English statute of the 30th of Charles II. or the above-mentioned statute of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary? His present majesty swore to maintain to the utmost of his power the church established by law in England and Ireland, as he found it esta blished by law, at the time of his accession, and not as it was established by law in the of William and Mary; though in fact it is the very same church, which was established by law in England and Ireland at that time, and which has received an additional barrier in Ireland since, by the enaction of the said English statute of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary for that country. apprehend I have taken up too much time in refuting this absurd argument, and shall only further observe, that it is not cre

1st

ed; for the aforesaid additions were made to the coronation oath by the 5th of Anne, many years subsequent to the 3d and 4th of Wm, and Mary, and also subsequent to the 1st and 2d of Anne; by which acts, he states, that romanists were deprived of their rights to seats and votes in the houses of lords and commons in Ireland. He admits also, that the coronation oath refers to that system of law which was in force, when the acts which prescribed it were passed; that is, that the king cannot conscientiously consent to the repeal of any of the acts for the perpetual security of the established church which had passed previously to the fixing of the coronation oath: that oath was ultimately fixed by the 5th of Anne; and therefore of the author's own shewing, the king cannot conscientiously consent to the repeal of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, or to that

་ ་

of the 1st and 2d of Anne, so far as they en- | By another resolution of the Irish house of join the taking of the oath of supremacy commons in the year 1661, all the memand the repetition and subscription of the bers were obliged to take the oath of supredeclaration by all members previous to their macy and the oath of allegiance of the 3d of sitting and voting in either of the houses.- James I. and receive the sacrament accordThe author states, that at the accession of ing to the usage of the church established, William and Mary, Roman catholic peers or to vacate their seats. The commons in had their seats, and voted in the house of the first parliament assembled in Ireland lords; Roman catholic commoners were after the accession of William and Mary, eligible to the house of commons; and all in the 3d and 4th year of their reign, imcivil and military offices were open to Ro-mediately on their meeting, and before they man catholics. In respect to Roman catho- proceeded to any business whatsoever, took lic peers, I am not sufficiently conversant in the oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and rethe journals of the Irish house of lords to peated and subscribed the declaration, deemascertain, whether Romish peers were, or ing the resolutions of the commons beforewere not, excluded from seats or votes in mentioned, and the English act of the 30th that house, unless they took the oath of su- of Charles II. imperative upon them: so premacy, previous to the 3d and 4th of Wil- that the idea that any member could sit in liam and Mary; they certainly were not the Irish house of commons at all times preso excluded by any Irish statute: but very vious to the accession of William and Mary, few such Irish peers could have sat in par- or to the third and fourth years of their liament in Ireland, from the restoration to reign, without taking the oath of supremacy; the 3d and 4th of William and Mary (ex- or that Irish romanists were, for the first cepting in the Romish mob assembled in time, abridged of that alleged right, by the Dublin by King James II. after his abdica- English act of the 3d and 4th of William tion, and by him and themselves styled and Mary, is erroneous; they were, long a parliament); for the Romish peerage in before that period, abridged of it by the Ireland was not numerous previous to the resolutions of the house of commons, waryear 1641; and almost the whole of them ranted by the law of parliament, part of the were attainted as traitors, having joined in law of the land, under which that house has that wicked Romish rebellion, and massacre claimed and exercised the power of judging of the Irish protestants, which broke out of the qualifications of its own members. and commenced in the year 1641; and the -The author's assertion, that all civil and remainder for their rebellion in 1689, 1690, military offices in Ireland were open to Ro and 1691. The author displays much arti- man catholics, previous to the accession of fice in his assertion respecting Romish com- William and Mary, smells of the same ar moners: he states that previous to the ac- tifice with his former assertion respecting cession of William and Mary, and till the the eligibility of romanists to be members of 3d and 4th years of their reign, they were the house of commons: it is true that such eligible to seats in parliament; they certain- offices were then open to romanists (as they ly were so, and are so still, and may occupy now are), if they performed the acts rethese seats, and vote in the house of com-quired to be performed by all his majesty's mons, provided they will take the oaths prescribed to be taken, not by them particularly, but by all his majesty's subjects sitting and voting in the house of commons: but the idea the author means to convey to his readers is, that romanists, antecedent to the 1st of William and Mary, were capable of occupying seats in the Irish house of commons, and did sit therein, without taking any oaths whatsoever, particularly the oath of supremacy. This is a gross mistatement. By a resulution of the Irish house of commons in the year 1642, [see the Journals of the Irish house of commons, vol. i. page 434, page 568. Vol. ii. page 443.] all the members were obliged to take the oath of supremacy, or to vacate their seats.

subjects appointed to such offices; but what he means to insinuate is, that romanists, till the accession of William and Mary, and till the third and fourth years of their reign, might enjoy all such offices in Ireland, without taking the oaths, &c. ; this assertion, in such sense is as groundless as any other in the pamphlet; for no person in Ireland could enjoy any such offices, without taking the oath of supremacy, as enjoined to be taken by the Irish act of the second of Elizabeth; by the univer sal rejection of which oath romanists disable themselves to hold or enjoy such offices. The cautious, artificial manner in which the pamphlet attempts to convey to the reader, the periods of Romish exclusion

T

from the houses of parliament, induces a judicial to the British government there, yet belief, that the author, at the time of wri- the establishment of it in Canada was a matting the pamphlet, was not ignorant of the ter of necessity and not of choice; for Co resolutions of the Irish house of commons nada surrendered to the British arms upon just mentioned, nor of the Irish act of the express stipulated conditions; one of which 2d of Elizabeth; and if he was not, what was, that the Roman catholic religion, opinion must the public entertain of his which was professed by that country before candour!The author cannot resort to the the conquest by the British arms, should be unlawful and riotous assembly convoked at for ever preserved inviolate; and Britain Dublin, in the year 1689, by King James II. ever faithful to her treaties, was thus ob after his abdication, and by him honoured liged to establish the Roman catholic religion with the title of a parliament, in proof of in that province. As to the fidelity of the his assertions; it consisted almost entirely Canadians during the American war, it may romanists, unlawfully elected, after he be accounted for also by necessity on their had destroyed all the protestant corporations, side: their communication with Europe is and driven out of the country, or into the by the river St. Lawrence, which is open protestant armies, almost the whole of the to navigation for six months in the year only; protestant nobility and gentry; and after for the other six months it is blockaded by he had himself ceased to be a king, and had ice. Britain, in case of rebellion of the therefore no power to convoke a parlia- Canadians, could cut off all communication ment. By act of parliament in the reign of with Europe by a few ships stationed in William and Mary, this mock parliament the river St. Lawrence; and the Canadians was declared to be an unlawful assembly, cannot at present subsist without European and all its acts and proceedings were con- commodities, and with these they could not demned to the flames, and were publicly be furnished from the United States without burned and destroyed accordingly. I trust great difficulty and intolerable expense, beI have demonstrated to the house, that the sides infinite risk and hazard.-The hon. doctrines, political, moral, and religious, member who has introduced this motion, contained in the petition, and stated to be has argued in favour of the motion from the the principles inculcated by the Roman ca- number of romanists in Ireland; and, to tholic religion, are diametrically opposite strengthen his argument, he has represented to the principles taught and inculcated by them, in the course of his speech, somethe canous, decrees of general councils, by times to amount to four millions, someall writers, lay and cleric, of the greatest times to three millions; but in the authority amongst the romanists, and a-whole course of his reasoning he has never dopted by the universal practice of their mentioned the Irish protestants, but has church from the date of the council of endeavoured to impress on the members of Lateran to the present day; and that their modern writers, such as Dr. Troy and Mr. Plowden assert," that the religious principles of Roman, catholics being unchangealle, they are applicable to all times; and that if any one says, or pretends to insinuate, that the modern Roman catholics differ in one jota from, their ancestors, he either deceives himself or wishes to deceive others; and that semper eadem is emphatically descriptive of their religion." It has been urged in this debate, that the establishment by the British government of the Roman catholic religion in Canada, furmishes a reason for establishing it in the remainder of the British empire, because it has not been productive of any bad effects there. It is rather premature; to form any decided opinion of what effects, may hereafter flow from such establishment; but even supposing that the effects of such establishment may hereafter be found to be preVOL. IV.

[ocr errors]

this house, unacquainted with Ireland, that all its inhabitants, with a few trifling exceptions, are romanists. To expose the errors of the hon. gentleman in this particular, it is necessary to state, that a calculation of the number of the inhabitants of Ireland was made in the year 1692, after the revolution war, and that they then amounted to one million two hundred thousand only. Another calculation was made in the year 1731, as Dr. Burke, Romish titular bishop of Ossory, has informed us, in his Hibernia Dominicana; and he states, that there were then found to be in Ireland seven hundred thousand four hundred and fifty-three protestants, and one million three hundred and nine thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight romanists; so that in 1734 the romanists of Ireland did not exceed the protestants in the proportion of two to one. Dr. Burke published his book in 1752, and he makes, bitter complaints, that the proportion of 3 N

the inhabitants of Ireland had increased necessary to reconcile a considerable share greatly on the protestant side in the interval of our population to the government is abbetween 1731 and 1762: it may from hence surd; for people who maintain, as a point be fairly deduced, that the romanists of of faith, that the state is subject to a foIreland are not, at this day, in the propor-reign jurisdiction, and is not independent, tion of two to one to the protestants of can never be reconciled to the state till they Ireland. From the best calculations lately renounce so anarchical and degrading a temade, it appears that the whole inhabi-net; they must be always enemies to it; tants of Ireland do not now exceed three and giving them political power, is furnishmillions; and it may be fairly deduced, that ing them with the means of overturning one million two hundred thousand of these the constitution.-The mob, and the inare protestants, the persons so much con- digent part of the population of a state temned by the hon. mover, that when (as the romanists of Ireland), ought not speaking of the inhabitants of Ireland, to be gratified at the expense of the ruin of he does not even condescend to mention the loyal, opulent, and respectable part of them; and if all the inhabitants of the the state. If the contrary conduct shall be British islands amount to sixteen mil- pursued, agrarian laws and the system of lions, then the romanists do not ex- equality must be adopted in every state; ceed one-eighth part of that population. It because the indigent in every state compose is notorious, that the Romish inhabitants of the bulk of the population, and are desirous Ireland do not possess one-fortieth part of of degrading and plundering the great and the real and personal property of that coun-rich in every state, as well as in Ireland.— try, nor one-thousandth part of the property To sum up all the arguments against this of the united kingdom in fact they com- measure, the laws enjoining the taking the pose the mob and the beggary of Ireland, oath of supremacy are not restrictive nor and are not of consequence enough, either exclusive laws, in respect to any class of in numbers, wealth, or power, to demand people in the community except to traitors, (as this petition does) the subversion of the because it is merely an oath of allegiance to constitution in church and state, and the the state. No subject, refusing it, should destruction of the protestants of Ireland, for be admitted to the functions of a legislator, their gratification.-There is an argument or to any place of trust and power in the advanced in the petition for the grant of state. To use the words of a great minister the representative franchise to romanists, of state, (Mr. Pitt) in the debate in 1790, from the elective franchise being con- on the attempt to repeal the test and corceded to them in Ireland. I trust that poration acts, persons professing modes I have already shewn to this house, that of belief which endanger the welfare of the the grant of the representative franchise society of which they are members, should to romanists would be attended by the sub-be excluded from possessing the authority version of the constitution in church and of the state; and here such line of exclustate; and that therefore their enjoyment sion should be drawn." The romanists in of the elective franchise is so far from being the British empire (but particularly in Irean argument for conceding to them the re-land) enjoy a complete toleration and liberty To use the words of the presentative franchise, that their demand of of conscience. the representative franchise, grounded upon same great minister again on the same octheir enjoyment of the elective franchise,casion; "Toleration consists in a is a strong and powerful argument for de- exercise of religion according to the tenets priving them of the elective franchise: be- of the professors of that religion, and in the cause, by their mode of argument, the enjoy-enjoyment of the protection of the laws; ment of the elective franchise entitles them not in a communication of an equality of to a privilege which would be subversive of political power." And in combating the the constitution in church and state.-It is arguments made use of on that occasion much safer for a Romish government, even he used the following expressions: " even a popular one, to admit protestants into papists, acknowledging the supremacy of a places of trust and power, than for a protest-foreign ecclesiastical prince, must, by such ant government to admit romanists; be-arguments, be admitted to offices of power Indeed every argument he ceuse protestants hold no doctrine as a point and trust." of faith hostile to the independence of the made use of on that occasion, can be used state of which they are subjects; but ro- with signal strength and effect against the manists do. The pica, that the measure is present measure. The present measure, if

[ocr errors]

free

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »