tions, having the proof in my possession, as I have repeatedly stated, and as the learned prelate has himself heretofore admitted, it is not material whether the church has acknowledged the right of nomination, it is sufficient that the practice is established in those and other states, and invariably acquiesced in by his church: we know that his church protested against all the reservations in favour of Protestant sovereigns and their prelates, conceded by the treaty of Westphalia-and that Innocent the 10th, by a Pontifical Bull pronounced the treaty, to that effect, null and void, as an encroachment on his spiritual jurisdiction;-but we know also that nei. ther Catholics nor Protestants paid the least attention to his Bull :-that the emperor and all the states ecclesiastical as well as civil, ratified the treaty, and that it remains as a constitution of the empire, if it can be said to have a constitution, at the present hour.

and propriety of the interference of the crown, and where are the temporal fiefs attached to the Irish Catholic bishoprics ?-nor did this objection occur to bishop Milner himself when heretofore exercising his pen in various publications in defence of those resolutions of the Irish prelates.-The bishop in this Charge, as in other of his recent publications, is very liberal in his epithets of condemnation of any attempt to institute a control upon the intromission and publication of Papal rescripts.-Star-chambers and Inquisitions are the terms of description by which he attempts to convey to his clergy an idea of the regulations to this end, which it is proposed to provide by legislation. Here, Sir, we have only to refer the bishop to the uniform legislation of every other state,-Catholic or Protestant,-wherein a dominant religion is established-and we see no reason why our own should set the example of unprecedented forbearance. But, says the bishop-"By what kind of regulation can the baronet prevent the transmission of that spiritual jurisdiction, which can no more be torn away or handled than a beam of the sun? Is he ignorant that it can be communicated not only by the pen, but also by word of mouth, by sign

how the hon. baronet would propose to regulate these intricate and subtle matters in the Secret Committee which he is incessantly calling for?"

In reply to my assertions that our Catholic ancestors established similar barriers to those now contended for, against the encroachment and abuse of the Papal power, he observes "supposing the English and Irish Catholics choose to have a species of Catholicity of our own, one more analogous to the present freedom of our constitution, and to the freedom lat--by signal? I should be curious to learn terly enjoyed by all other dissidents from the established church, how can this concern the hon. baronet, provided we are good and loyal subjects?"-" The statutes of Provisors and Premunire (he continues to observe) were devised merely to prevent the court of Rome from bestowing temporal fiefs, annexed to bishoprics, on foreigners."-To this part of his argument I shall only repeat that we are to look to the practical course of nominations as followed by other states-and indeed in one instance, at least, we may add our own, for the Catholic bishop of Quebec, who is actually nominated by the governor of Quebec, has no temporal fief attached to his see;-nor have the apostolic vicars where licenced in other Protestant states to exercise their spiritual functions:-the same may be said of the coadjutor bishops of the Russian empire, and I am yet to learn whether there be any such fief attached to the archiepiscopal see of Mohilow-I suspect otherwise. But this, Sir, is a new objection raised since the debate of 1808, for no such reasoning occurred to the Irish Catholic prelates in 1799, when they pronounced in favour of the justice

I believe, Sir, that this sort of argument is calculated rather to promote than check the institution of such inquiries as I have proposed to the House. Other states have found no difficulties in establishing regulation-I have no visionary theories to recommend-I wish only to establish the proof of existing authorities, and to act upon them; in this wish I carry with me the sentiments of the best informed Catholics, who are not less tenacious of the integrity of their religion, than the learned prelate who seeks so industriously to alarm and unsettle their consciences.-The bishop at length proposes a new form of oath which offers a security, he avers, much more effectual than the security proposed by me-but in respect to those securities which are already proposed for enactment, as modified in the clauses of the right hon. member opposite to me (Mr. Canning,) he tells us that thirty bishops, with their clergy, and a numerous laity, are ready to mount the scaffold and sub

mit to the axe or the halter, rather than oath, but the information was not drawn submit to them. from the best source.* When the test of an oath is assumed to be the only test which we have a right to demand, and if upon the averment that this test has been generally given, you are now called upon to concede to the claims of the petitioners in their fullest extent, can enquiry as to the fact be deemed an unjustifiable act, or a work of supererogation? If it should ap pear, however, that the averment is not sustained by the fact, but on the contrary, that the numbers of those who have submitted to this test are comparatively fewit may be asked, if there be not some ground of objection in this respect afforded to the opponents of the Bill, especially against the arguments of those who con tend for the test as the only security?-I do not believe, Sir, that the majority of Catholics object to the prescribed oaths, but we know that objections have been taken to those oaths by some of them, and it could be wished that a test were framed, which could afford no ground of cavil. When the Bill of 1791 was introduced in this House, a great controversy took place, as I have heretofore stated, respecting the oath as originally framed. Bishop Milner was one of those most loud in condemning it his objections, though disregarded in this House, were countenanced in the other House of Parliament, and the late bishop of St. Asaph, Dr. Horsley, decried the oath with scarcely less vehemence than bishop Milner himself.

The House will judge whether such declarations proceeding from an ecclesiastic, possessing, as he necessarily must possess, a great influence over the minds of a considerable population of his extended district-comprehending, as I have stated, fifteen English counties-whether, Sir, such language is calculated to promote conciliation, or rather whether it be not pregnant with mischievous results? The learned prelate, Sir, then insists npon the paramount security of his oath. I am ready to admit that where oaths will not bind, human provisions are likely to failbut the effort must be made, and precautionary guards must still continue to be the objects of enactment:—a state must do its best to protect itself by the means within its disposal.-My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel great obligation to the learned prelate, if he can frame an oath which shall dispense with the necessity of keeping up our onerous establishment of revenue officers. I own that I am disposed to give credit to no man upon his oath, whom I would not willingly credit upon his word of honour. Such also, it should seem, was the impression that influenced the councils of a government proverbially cautious in framing regulations, similar to those I would provide on the present occasion,-the States of Holland were content to receive a disavowal of those obnoxious tenets which have been imputed to the See of Rome, merely on the priestly word of an ecclesiastic-but they do not stop here: I have often stated their regulation, that every Catholic priest must be presented to the civil magistrate for approval, and other regulations respecting the controul upon Papal rescripts also existed similar to those of other states. These facts I state on the authority of the cardinal archbishop of Siena, who is now living, from his letters addressed to myself. His eminence was, for many years, the secretary of the college of Propaganda Fide.

And here, Sir, I think it opportune to observe respecting the administration of the oaths prescribed by the English and Irish statutes, that the universality of that test is not such as is assumed by those advocates who think it conclusive. An effort was recently made, in another place, to ascertain the extent of the compliance with the provisions of the English Act of 1791, as far as respected the prescribed (VOL. XXVI.)

The oath was altered in the upper House, at the suggestion of the bishop of St. Asaph, so as to become unobjectionable to the English Roman Catholic prelates of that day. The oath, so amend

* A return was made to the House of Lords, on the motion of lord Kenyon, of the number of Catholics, who had, within the last ten years, taken the oaths prescribed by the Act of 1791; only one name was returned. Lord Kenyon limited his motion to the returns made to the privy council, to which the Act directs that the returns should be transmitted from the offices of the clerks of the peace, but which injunction is not duly observed. The offices of the clerks of the peace supply the information in the first instance, and they were resorted to by sir J. H. as stated by him in speaking to his motion.

In the Irish Act the succession clause is differently worded. Bishop Milner in a (C)

ed, is that which stands on the face of the Act of 1791. When we advert, Sir, to the great mass of Catholic population, even of this part of the United Kingdom, and observe such questions raised on the subject of this test;-when we find also, that comparatively, so few have complied with the provisions of the several Acts of Toleration in this respect-can we wonder that objections are made against further concession? May we not expect complaint of the negligence, at least, manifested by the majority of Catholics in not complying with this essential provision of the Act-especially as many of the penal laws must continue in force against those

who are in the habitual observance of the ostensible rites of their religion without conforming to the provisions of the legislature.

The Petition of the Irish Catholics in 1805 states-"That the petitioners have solemnly and publicly taken the oaths, by law prescribed to his Majesty's Catholic subjects, as tests of political and moral principles."-In the year 1812, the Catholics of Ireland assert:-" We have publicly and solemnly taken every oath of fidelity and allegiance which the zealous caution of the legislature has, from time to time, imposed as tests of our political and moral principles:" again" By those awful tests we have note to his brief Memorial, circulated in bound ourselves, in the presence of the lobby of the House of Commons on the all seeing Deity, whom all classes the night Mr. Grattan's Bill was with- of Christians adore, to be faithful and drawn, (dated 20th May 1813) declares, bear true allegiance to our most gra"that many Catholics in England, have cious sovereign."-The English Catholics refused to take the oath, appointed for also, in their petition of the present sesthem by the Act of 1791, in consequence sions, declare, that they have "cheerfully of the terms in which the succession clause and readily taken the oaths and signed the is couched, and it is presumed that declaration prescribed in the Acts which many more in Ireland, where it never yet have been passed for their relief,—they has been proposed, will refuse to take it, humbly conceive that further securities on the same account, namely, from an idea cannot be required from them."-That that they thereby would be obliged to those who actually subscribed these sevetake up arms against the sovereign, in ral petitions have conformed to the several case he was to profess their religion, Acts is not denied, but it will be observed which nobody can believe they would do." that the relief prayed for, is in the name He then proposes a change of the terms of the whole Catholic population of the of the oath-substituting the words "to United Kingdom. - What can be col submit to the Act of Settlement, &c."lected from these solemn allegations but The Irish prelates it is well known, have that the petitioners themselves were fully often urged the removal of the same ob-impressed with the necessity of a general stacle and bishop Milner urged it in conformity to the provisions of the legistheir behalf in his letter to Mr. Ponsonby lature, so far as to shew that they have in 1810. In the Bill introduced by Mr. submitted to the test, of which they speak Grattan, the words " the heirs of her body, with so much reverence, in order thereby (the princess Sophia) being Protestants," to substantiate their claims to concessions form part of the oath-the authority there- for which they now apply to parliament ? fore of bishop Milner, speaking from his It is upon this principle that their most experience as an apostolical vicar of Eng- strenuous advocates have uniformly urged land, and also as agent for the Catho- their claims. Let us also revert, Sir, to lic bishops of Ireland, is adverse to the the period I have before noticed, namely, oath, as introduced in the present Bill. the year 1791, after the Act had passed The votes of the Catholic prelacy of Ire-let us look to the invitation given by land of the 29th of May, 1813, and of the aggregate meeting of the Catholics of Ireland, 15th June 1813, are also on record, by which Dr. Milner is again thanked for his manly and conscientious opposition" to Mr. Grattan's Bill: -with these facts before the public-concession without inquiry does not seem to afford the best measure of answering the ends proposed by the Bill.

a venerable Roman Catholic prelate who then presided over, what is termed, the London district, or the ten southern counties. -The late bishop Douglas, in reference to the oath prescribed by the Act of 1791, thus addressed the Catholics of his district: "As our emancipation from the pressure of the penal laws must awaken every

* As
many

of the speakers in assemblies

civil liberty, which has been erroneously imputed to you."-Such was the salutary a monition of bishop Douglas on the 14th of June 1791, and he was immediately followed by the hon. bishop Talbot, bishop Walmesly, and bishop Gibson in pastoral

all

resulted from causes within our power to obviate consistently with security to the establishment, in the name of God, let us hasten to remove them, and by every ef fort in our power seek to unite every fellow subject " to each other by mutual interest and affection;" but, let not the enquiry be stigmatised with imputed motives founded on the very opposite principles of those which dictate it.

Sir J. H. then proceeded to state that he had requested information from the several clerks of the peace of 29 of the 40 Eng

charges to their several districts-they speak of it as a test required by the legislature from the Catholics of England" and "to be subscribed," to use Dr. Talbot's words "without scruple or difficulty." If scruples and difficulties be now raised therefore-and if those scruples and difficulties be imputed to Catholics by their opponents as justifiable reasons for withholding from them, at present, the objects their petition, is it unreasonable to insti tute inquiry? What Sir, is the language of the legislature in contemplation of this object? Our English Act of 1791 de-lish counties, including those of the most clares it to be expedient that such persons as shall take the Oath of Allegiance, Abjuration and Declaration, shall be relieved from some of the penalties and disabilities of former statutes.-The Irish Act of 1782 declares, that those who have taken the prescribed oathsought to be consi, dered as good and loyal subjects." It is therefore, Sir, in the letter and spirit of these Acts that we are called to inquiry, and if it can be shewn that the non-com. pliance with the provisions of them have

considerable Catholic population-such as Lancashire-Yorkshire-Northumberland

Staffordshire Shropshire, &c.— the metropolis and its vicinity.-It had been admitted, he observed, by a Roman Catholic prelate, that the Catholic population of Great Britain was little short of half a million; bishop Milner had indeed stated it only at half that amount-of the accuracy of either he would not pretend to judge,but he would state such facts as did not admit of a doubt:-there was no doubt but that the Catholic population, comprehended within a circle extending 10 miles from the metropolis, exceeded. 80,000, yet the number of those who had taken the oaths since the year 1791 (the date of the English Act) in the county of Middlesex did not exceed 97; and including the neighbouring counties of Surrey, Kent and Essex, only 77 more were to be added. In stating this fact, sir J. H. ob

tachment to the constitution, and unshaken loyalty to our gracious sovereign,-a sovereign, who has done more for the Roman Catholic body, and, indeed, for this kingdom in general, than any, or all of his predecessors. I know, beloved brethren, that efforts have been made by evil-minded men, to weaken your attachment to the constitution of your country, and your allegiance to the best of kings, by circulat-served, that it was incumbent upon him to ing impious and seditious writings, and encouraging you to outrage and riot; but, in the name of God, why should you be the dupes and tools of these wicked incendiaries?"

The Declaration of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in the year 1791, when they were exposed to the pressure of a great part of the penal laws, since repealed, was also highly creditable to their feelings and conduct at that period, when they asserted "That it was not for the Irish Catholics, like public foes, to take advantage from public calamity: they ought to advance their claims at a time favourable to discussion, when the condition of the empire is flourishing and tranquil. They might seem culpable to their country, if, affecting to dissemble what it is unmanly not to feel, they reserved their pretensions in ambuscade to augment the perplexities of some critical emergency."

say also that he was fully persuaded that no admonitions have been wanting on the part of the Catholic prelate who presided over the London district.-Nor has the King a more loyal subject than bishop Poynter, nor the church of Rome a prelate more free from any bigotry or prejudice which can injure him in the estimation even of a Protestant.-It is assumed by Catholics that the Catholic population of the county of Lancaster exceeds 40,000; yet by the returns of the clerk of the peace within the same period, 454 only had taken the oaths.-In the county of Northumberland 96.-Of the 15 counties of the Midland district, subjected to bishop Milner's spiritual charge, in Staffordshire (the most populous of Catholics) 35 only had taken the oaths-since 1791-in Lincolnshire 85-in Derbyshire 43--in Nor folk 10-in the whole Midland district 504.

Sir J. H. adverted particularly to the city of Bristol, because he had been supplied