"irrefragably established your right. I am con"vinced your sentiments, as citizens, have long "merited that indulgence. But it required your

public profession, as an aggregate body, to au"thorize the legislature to remove restrictions, "which the unfortunate temper of earlier times "had rendered, perhaps, indispensable.'

"After this, you will not be surprised at the "partiality of your committee to the oath, as it "was originally framed upon the protestation.

"But this was not all.-The protestation was a "solemn instrument, signed, (with few exceptions "indeed), by all the clergy and all the laity. To "the minister, to the houses of parliament, to the "nation, your committee had solemnly presented "it, as an explicit and unequivocal declaration of "the sentiments of the English catholics, as men "and citizens. The oath, (whatever might be the "sentiments of others), was, in the opinion of your "committee, a counterpart of the protestation. To "withdraw the oath, appeared to us receding from

the protestation. To recede from the protes"tation, we held in horror; we thought it an act "of unjustifiable perfidy; we were persuaded it "would cover the body, and ourselves in particular, with ignominy, and make us for ever despicable in the eyes of men of honour, prin"ciple, consistency of character, or truth.

We

never, therefore, could be induced to solicit the "withdrawing of the oath.

"But here we rested. When your present oath, "or the oath of 1778, or the Canada oath, or any

other unobjectionable oath was proposed, we never "refused to testify our readiness to take it, if the legislature should think proper to impose it on "us; but, at the same time, we uniformly declared, "we had no conscientious objections to the oath as "it then stood. We said, we had signed the pro"testation: that we considered the oath to be a counterpart of the protestation, and that from the protestation we never would recede*.”

66

66

1. Most of our readers are, we believe, acquainted with the famous passage in St. Augustine, "Audite reges terræ! "Audi circumcisio! Audi præputium! Non impedio domi"nationem vestram." Hear, ye kings of the earth! Hear, ye circumcised! Hear, ye uncircumcised! I do not IMPEDE your domination.

2. In the oath taken by the Irish clergy and laity, they swear that "they will not exercise any privilege, to which they "are or may be entitled, to disturb and weaken the protestant religion and protestant government in Ireland."

66

It has been asked of those, who thought the oath formed on the protestation objectionable,-what is the substantial difference between the word impede, in the passage cited from St. Augustine, the words disturb and weaken in the Irish oath, and the words "affect and interfere," in the oath framed on the protestation?

The difference has not yet been pointed out. Two English lawyers of the greatest eminence, Mr. Hill, the king's first serjeant at law, and Mr. Lee, his majesty's solicitor-general, gave their decided opinions that the words "interfere with," in the oath formed on the protestation, were to be construed of an interference by temporal means.-Most unquestionably, these gentlemen, however respectable, were not entitled to a vote in any question respecting the nature or extent of the spiritual powers of the church,--but, most assuredly, when a question arose, what the legislature meant by the words “in"terfere with," the opinion of such men was certainly of great weight.

To prevent any misconception of their conduct by the holy see, the committee determined to de

When a dispute arose in China, whether the words Tien and Xangti were understood by the Chinese themselves to denote "God," in the sense in which that word is understood by christians, or "the god of Chinese idolatry," the jesuits justly asserted that the emperor's own declaration on the subject was of great weight.

--

To the same, but not to more, the opinions of the king's serjeant and solicitor-general were justly entitled.

We shall now transcribe the case and opinions.

Case, with Mr. Serjeant Hill's Opinion.

"Mr. serjeant Hill is requested to peruse the oath, in the "heads of the bill left herewith, as altered in red ink.

"A doubt has arisen in the minds of some catholics, whe"ther some parts of the oath, particularly the clause in red "ink, do not amount to a denial of the spiritual rights, with "which, according to their religious tenets, the church and "her ministers, and particularly the pope, is invested :-As "those of preaching the faith,-administering the sacra"ments,-ordaining the ministers of the church,-punishing by spiritual censures, &c.-if it amount to a denial of the "pope, the church, and her ministers, being invested with "the rights of this nature, it is an oath which a catholic can"not take consistently with his religious principles.

"On the other hand it is contended, that it is not meant to "deny, by the oath, any spiritual right of the church; but "merely the right of the church to interfere in temporal "concerns, or to use temporal means to enforce her spiritual 66 censures.

"Two propositions are admitted on all sides:

"The one, that the church is invested with a complete au"thority in spiritual concerns; and a power to enforce that "authority by the spiritual means of censures; and that the "pope is the spiritual head of the church.

"The other, that neither the church nor the pope have, "either directly or indirectly, any temporal power in this ❝ kingdom.

pute the rev. Mr. Hussey, afterwards bishop of Waterford, to his holiness. We shall transcribe

"The question therefore is, whether the oath in question, "and particularly that part of it which is written in red ink, " is a denial of the spiritual authority of the church or the "spiritual supremacy of the pope?

Opinion.

"No form of civil government, nor any system of laws, was "instituted by Christ or his apostles, nor any commission "granted to their successor, to enforce the christian doctrine "by temporal power. The authority of the pope and the "church is derived from them. The words of the oath do "not import a denial of their having this authority: they "only deny their having temporal power, or a right to "enforce the spiritual authority by temporal power. This "is all the party who takes the oath will or can be un"derstood to swear or assert, when he swears, in the words "of the oath, that they have no jurisdiction or authority that " can either directly or indirectly affect or interfere with the "independence, sovereignty, laws, constitution, or govern"ment thereof, or with the rights, liberties, persons, or pro

66

perties of the people of the said realm, or any of them ;"therefore, I think the oath is not a denial of the spiritual "authority of the church, or the supremacy of the pope. "Lincoln's Inn, Feb. 18, 1791.

"G. Hill."

Extract from Mr. Solicitor-general Lee's letter. "A state or constitution has the rights of self-defence, as "well as an individual; and it is competent to each commu "nity to make such regulations, and to stipulate such condi❝tions, as appear, on their best consideration, to produce the greatest good, and to avert the most evil from society. The "most usual, and perhaps the most unexceptionable, is an oath of fidelity to the estate. For no man has a right to "remain in and be protected by the laws of any community, "that is plotting its destruction. On this simple and plain "ground I think every legislature ought to proceed; and I "trust that it will be thought neither injurious to the civil

the minutes of the committee respecting his intended deputation.

LXXXII. 7.

Intended Deputation of the rev. Mr. Thomas Hussey to Rome on the subject of the Bill.

Ar a meeting of the committee of English catholics, at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand, on the 5th Nov. 1790; Present,

It was moved, and unanimously resolved, "That Mr. Hussey be requested to go to Rome, "in the name of the committee, to lay before his holiness, a fair representation of the late proceedings of the committee, and an exact state of "the present situation of the English catholics."

At a meeting of the committee of English catholics on the 1st Dec. 1790;

rights, nor offensive to the consciences of peaceable catho"lics to comply with it. Pretending to no subtle casuistry, "I cannot well see how any man who can take the oath of "1778, can rationally object to the proposed oath."

On this ground, the writer always thought that the clause in the oath grounded on the protestation was properly inter. preted by the committee:- but he repeats, that, in the turn which the business took, he sincerely rejoiced that the oath was abandoned.