events of the last war had tended to raise and handsome manner in which he had to a state of consideration. It appeared spoken of the state of the navy. He confrom the papers, that means had been curred in the propriety of this country taken for building ships of larger dimen- building ships on a scale similar to those sions, corresponding with those of the with which our navy might probably have same rates built by other powers. It was to contend. It was the duty of the legisknown that the American 2 deck ships lature to be prepared to maintain, on any were superior to those of the same rates emergency, that naval supremacy which built in this country, both as to guns and the country had acquired. With respect men. He did not, however, think that to the dimensions of ships of war, it was it would be advisable to have all the ships true that some were building on a scale in the British navy raised to the same considerably beyond what had formerly scale. To attempt such a measure would been thought proper for the same rate. be only a useless waste of money. The He did not, however, think that all the American frigates were of a very superior two-deckers of the navy ought to be raised class compared to the scale on which to that scale. Many vessels were wanted British frigates had formerly been built; for convoy and other purposes in time of but he could not think it necessary that war; and frigates and ships of the line all the British frigates should henceforth might be so employed, though not conbe built on so enlarged a scale. He structed on so large a scale as those of thought it would be better to build frigates other powers with which the country of a size between those formerly fitted out might happen to be at war. At the same by this country and the American frigates. time he did not concur with the noble This seemed the more advisable, as the earl in his opinion, that it would be proper latter could not be expected to be very to build ships of an intermediate size benumerous. In the present state of the tween the scale hitherto adopted in the country, economy in every department navy and that of other countries. He did was most desirable, but he did not think not think it right to place the officers of the naval service one in which economy the British navy in a situation which would ought to be too rigidly enforced. Every compel them to go into action with a reduction that could be made, consistently great disparity of force. With regard to with the great object of having the navy what the noble lord had said, as to the in an efficient state on the commencement number of guard ships compared with the of a war, ought to be carried into effect, other ships in commission, he thought but nothing more should be attempted. that upon reflection he would perceive He thought the number of ships in active that there was no disadvantage in that service on foreign stations might be more, arrangement. The men employed in the and the number of guard ships less. This guardships could be removed to others at change would produce a state of greater a moment's notice; and the having them efficiency without materially augmenting ready for such a transfer would be very the expense. He had heard that the re- useful on any emergency. The noble giments of marines were reduced in num-earl had alluded to the state of the marines, bers below what might have been expected, but he hoped that useful corps would be preserved in such a state of efficiency, that, in case of a war unfortunately occurring, it might be employed with the usual advantage to the service. The practice of impressing seamen had been long a subject of complaint and regret. He was afraid, that on a sudden emergency, the navy could not be manned without the impress. It would, however, be advisable for their lordships to consider how far the evils of that practice might, without public inconvenience, be diminished. He concluded by moving that the papers be printed. Lord Melville expressed his acknow. ledgments to the noble lord for the candid and he concurred with him in his view of the propriety of maintaining that corps in an efficient state. No force was, in his opinion, more useful; and any report of an intention to reduce them to a scale lower than that of the last peace establishment, was founded in mistake. The papers were ordered to be printed. ROMAN CATHOLICS RELIEF BILLDOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.] Earl Grey said, he had hoped that the bill, the second reading of which he now rose to move, would 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 doc trines, of faith, considered with regard to religion only, were not a ground for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the enjoyment of the advantages of the British constitution; and that no reason remained for maintaining that exclusion, except their acknowledgment of foreign spiritual supremacy, which it was contended rendered it impossible for them to give to a Protestant government a sufficient security for their allegiance. After these admissions, he had thought there could be no objection to a bill which merely proposed to repeal declarations required of a reli gious and dogmatical nature, relating entirely to questions of faith and doctrine, and which had no reference whatever to the supremacy of any foreign power. He had therefore expected, that a proposition for the repeal of these declarations would not have been resisted; but he was told, from an authority which he could not doubt, that the bill he had introduced was to be met with a most determined opposition. It became, therefore, incumbent on him to state the grounds on which he thought their lordships ought to pass it. The bill proposed to abrogate two declarations enacted by the 25th and the 30th of Charles 2nd. The former was required on admission to office, and the latter to a seat in parliament. Before he proceeded to inquire on what grounds it could be thought reasonable to maintain these declarations, he would briefly call their lordships attention to the state of the times in which the laws he wished to remove from the statute book had been passed. The 25th of Charles 2nd was commonly called the Test act, and it could scarcely be necessary to remind their lordships of the state of agitation which prevailed in the country when that law was enacted. It passed in the year 1673, when parliament met, after repeated prorogations, with the country in a state of great irritation and alarm. The king was suspected of being a Catholic; the queen was known to be one; the duke of York, also a Catholic, the next heir to the crown; and all the principal offices of the court were filled by Catholics. The act of Non-Conformity had been suspended by proclamation, for the purpose of favouring Catholics. There was a camp at Blackheath commanded by the duke of Schomberg, a foreigner, and most of the officers were Roman Catholics. These troops had been assembled for the very purpose of overawing parlia ment. A war, too, had recently commenced against Holland, the only protestant power in Europe in which civil and religious liberty then found protection. If such were the circumstances under which the act of the 25th of Charles 2nd had passed, those which existed at the time of passing that of the 30th were still more remarkable. In addition to all the circumstances he had already stated, with a court and government so hostile to civil liberty, the mind of the country was irritated by the disclosure of the popish plot, and the evidence of Titus Oates, and others. The circumstances of dismay under which these acts were passed, accounted for their intolerant nature. Every Roman Catholie was then regarded as a conspirator, and an enemy of public liberty. It was therefore against crimes attributed to Catholics, and not against their religion, that these laws were enacted. They were considered necessary safeguards, while the monarch was suspected of being a Catholic, and his successor avowedly of that religion. That it was in this spirit these measures had been adopted was abundantly proved by the other severe statutes, which not only excluded Catholics from office, but even deprived them of civil existence. It was only on a principle of great jealousy and apprehended danger that the passing of such laws in a free state could be accounted for. Happily, these cruel laws had been repealed in more temperate times. Still, however, some intolerant acts were retained, and there were none which, in christian charity and justice, their lordships were more bound to remove than those which it was the object of the present bill to abrogate. The Roman Catholics were now regarded in a very dif ferent point of view from that in which they were contemplated when these acts passed. The imputations on the moral principles of the Roman Catholics had been disclaimed; on that disclaimer parliament had acted; and never had the humanity of the legislature been more completely justified than by the conduct of the Catholics since the severe disabili. ties under which they laboured had been removed. The oaths which had at different times been formed in order to be administered to persons taking office or entering into parliament, had all one object, namely, to separate spiritual from political supremacy. The noble earl op to exist, on account of any doctrine that did not affect the character of the person who maintained it, as a good member of society or a loyal subject. That the declarations which the present bill was introduced to repeal was no test of obedience or loyalty, would appear from their nature. The first declaration which was imposed by the act of the 25th of Charles 2nd was directed against those who be lieved in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The second, or that of the 30th of Charles 2nd, went further, and declared the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the invocation of the Virgin Mary and of the saints, idolatrous and superstitious. Now, he would ask, if it was necessary to exclude the Roman Catholics from office and power, was it likewise necessary to denounce their belief and revile their worship? Must it not be galling to that body, not only to be denied the privileges to which their fellow subjects were admitted, but to hear themselves branded as the votaries of a blind superstition, and the partisans of an idolatrous worship? But how could the Protestants in most cases take these declarations, or subscribe these oaths, without some feelings of doubt and some scruples of conscience? It had been a general complaint against most governments, that they had imposed useless oaths, and thereby weakened the solemn obligation which an oath implied; and from this charge we were not wholly exempt. Previous to any noble lord taking his seat, he was obliged to come to the table of the House, and to take those declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints-doctrines and practices which they had never examined: thus converting into a mere ceremonial and matter of course the most solemn act that could bind the conscience. Had all their lordships examined the tenets alluded to with such attention, as to be able on conviction to declare them idolatrous and superstitious? Did they understand distinctly what the Roman Catholics meant by transubstantiation or the invocation of the Virgin Mary? Did they know sufficiently what was meant by the sacrifice of the Mass; and could they declare, that in the sense in which it was understood by the Catholic body, the ceremony was idolatrous and superstitious? posite (Liverpool) had admitted that there is nothing immoral in the Roman Catholic religion. Every imputation of that kind he acknowledged to have been satisfactorily disclaimed and disproved. He stated almost in the words of the declaration, that it is not because they believe in transubstantiation, in the invocation of the Virgin Mary, or of Saints, or in the sacrifice of the Mass, that they are excluded from the benefits of the British constitution; but that before they can be admitted to the full enjoyment of their political rights, it is necessary that the legislature should be satisfied that the spiritual authority they acknowledge is so separated from temporal authority, as to enable them to give a perfect allegiance. That the doctrine of transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, and the other doc. trines he had alluded to, did not, in the opinion of the legislature, carry with them any moral or civil disqualification, was proved by acts which had already been passed for the relief of the Roman Catholics. He would appeal, in support of this opinion, to the acts of 1778 and 1791, passed for the relief of Roman Catholics in Scotland. The preamble of the act of 1778 contained a declaration of this principle. It referred to an act of the Scots parliament passed in the reign of king William, requiring Roman Catholics to make a renunciation, according to formula, of transubstantiation and other articles of their faith; and declares that the act ought to be repealed, as the formula contained only speculative opinions and religious doctrines. A clear distinction was made between temporal and spiritual authority and the same principle governed the act of 1791. Thus he had not only the admission of the noble earl opposite, but the authority of an act of the legislature itself, for saying, that the speculative opinions or religious dogmas of the Roman Catholics ought not of themselves to form the ground of exclusion from office, or a reason for political disqualification. Why, then, continue these declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation, which related merely to speculative opinions? Was not the oath of supremacy, by which the temporal and spiritual power of the pope was renounced, sufficient to secure the legislature and the higher offices of the state from the admission of Roman Catholics? He hoped it would not now be necessary to prove, that no political or civil disqualification ought He was sure that many of their lordships would admit, that they had never seriously considered these questions, and that they would find it difficult, with a safe conscience, to make any declaration on the subject. On this account he thought that their lordships could not resist a revision of that part of the statute-book by which such a test was imposed. The doctrine of transubstantiation, which was declared to be idolatrous, did not differ so widely from the doctrine of Protestants on the same subject, as to authorize them to declare so strongly against it; nor, in the sense in which it was understood by the Catholics, could it be called idolatrous. The Catholic maintained, that in the sacrament the elements were changed, and that he enjoyed the real presence of that Deity to whom all worship and adoration were due. How could this be called idolatry, in the sense in which the Catholic understood the doctrine of transubstantiation? But was this doctrine so different from the doctrine of the Protestants of the Church of England, or so inconsistent with the text of scripture, on which the belief of both was founded, as to warrant the epithet applied to it in the case of the Roman Catholic? Their lordships, as members of the Church of England, must of course believe, that the interpretation of the Catholic was wrong; but it was their duty not to revile the conscientious belief of others who differed from them, but to attribute their difference of opinion to a fallibility of judgment, and to consider that only one omniscient being could unanswerably decide between them. It ought to be recollected, that no two churches agreed in the interpretation of the text of scripture, which the Roman Catholic appealed to, as supporting the doctrine of the real presence; while the church of England, and other Protestant churches, drew from it doctrines that differed only by such slight shades, as the generality of those who took the oaths might not always sufficiently examine so as to be able to come to the decision required. The Roman Catholic believed, that in the sacrament of the eucharist there was a real transubstantiation of the elements into the body of Christ; the church of England believed in what was called consubstantiation; and the Calvinist in a mysterious union of the soul of the worshipper with the saviour, through the sacred symbols: in one way or other the doctrine of the real presence was adopted by them all. Was not something very similar to the doctrine of the real presence believed in by the most early reformers? Was it not the belief of queen Elizabeth? Was it not that of archbishop Laud? The real interpretation of that part of the sacred scripture could only be given by the Divine Author of the scripture; and no difference of opinion upon it could authorize us to renounce that charity which was the common and undoubted duty of all, or to use those reviling terms that we applied in a solemn oath to the worship of the Roman Catholics. In confirmation of this opinion, he begged leave to call the attention of their lordships to a letter of a very eminent divine of the Church of England-he meant archbishop Wake. That reverend divine had engaged in a controversy with the doctors of Sorbonne, but had candidly admitted, that in many things the church of England and the church of Rome main. tained the same doctrines and practised similar rites. [Here the noble lord read a quotation from a Latin letter of the archbishop, in which he allowed the similarity between the doctrine and discipline of the two churches.] The attachment of this divine to his country, his loyalty to his sovereign, and his conscientious adherence to the tenets of the church at the head of which he was, could not be doubted; and yet he admitted, that in a comparison between the church of England and the church of Rome their articles of faith dif fered very little, their discipline still less, and that in fundamentals they were nearly the same. Adverting again to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the noble earl observed, that it had not been considered as idolatrous by many eminent Protestants. In confirmation of this position, he quoted the opinion of Mr. Waller, of sir William Temple, and others. Bishop Burnet had mentioned, that at the framing of the declaration the bishop of Ely objected to it, and contended that the practice of the church of Rome, in the administration of the eucharist, could not be called idolatrous. The noble earl produced other authorities in support of this opinion, and called upon their lordships, on these grounds, to agree with his bill in abolishing a test which unnecessarily declared against the dogmas of another church, and reviled a religion which on the point in question, was so little different from their own. On the impropriety of such epithets as idolatrous and superstitious, as applied to the Roman Catholic tenets, he would not further enlarge; but as he understood : 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 preservation 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." He was ready to give praise to those who supported the Protestant constitution, and were ready to guard the church from any danger with which it was threatened; but he should wish that they would show the same resolution to support the constitution, the rights and liberties of the people, on other occasions when they were assailed. In the third resolution 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, Car. 2, it was enacted, "that there were objections to the repeal of the act in question, he would endeavour to answer them as well as he could. He would have found it difficult to know what these objections were, had he not met with a statement of them-a paper, which contained the resolutions of a certain body of men against the present bill, on which a petition was to be founded, which, as far as he knew, had not yet been presented to the House. This paper evinced the same spirit as had been manifested against the bill which he (lord Grey) had introduced to another House in 1807, which excited at that time such clamour, and produced such consequences; and it was some consolation to him to reflect, that as the hostility to that measure had subsided when its objects were better understood; and as it had received the sanction of parliament without creating any alarm, without leading to any discussion, or meeting with any opposition; showing, that what was resisted at one period, and in the hands of one man, as dangerous and disastrous, was adopted at another, and from a different quarter, as wise and salutary so it might happen with the present measure, which he might have expected to have been received with indulgence, if not with favour. It was, however, to be opposed, and the resolutions which he had alluded to stated the grounds. He could not say that the noble lord on the woolsack had had any hand in drawing up that paper; but from the technical terms in which it was expressed, from the particular phrases which were used, the style of thinking that it evinced, and the precision of the ideas that it contained, he did not doubt that it had come under his revision, and expressed his sentiments. The noble and learned lord had said, that our constitution was fundamentally Protestant, and the first resolution stated nearly the same thing: he said, "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 stated, "that, being sensible of the religious and political blessings enjoyed under the sway of the royal house of Brunswick, and (VOL. XL.) no peer of the realm, or member of the House of Commons, should vote or sit in parliament, until he should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration, against transubstantiation and popery." The fourth 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 25th Charles 2nd, and the declaration against transubstantiation and popery, required by the statute 30th 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 ascer(3 X ) |
