THE RELIEF BILL.
TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THIS important measure remains as much a mystery at the mo- ment when we write, as it was six months ago, when none but those who are to introduce it dreamed of its existence. If Govern- ment had only reasonable beings with whom to contend, the pro cess to a settlement of the long-disputed question would be a mighty short one. We could, we think, concoct an act of twenty lines or less, that would put it to rest for ever. We believe that most persons who have not read more than the leading articles of the newspapers on the subject of Catholic exclusion, imagine that there is a formidable array of statutes to be repealed. On the con- trary, not only is there no statute to be repealed, but there is no statute, nor ever was, to prohibit Roman Catholics from sitting in Parliament. All that the Legislature attempted, when acting under the present influence of the " plaat,"—as Dr. Tuns OATES termed it,—was to exact certain oaths from those that might in future be members of their body. These oaths have been slightly varied since, but they still remain substantially the same as when first imposed. We quoted them when discussing the question of Mr. O'CONNELL'S taking his seat ; they are the oaths of Supremacy and the declaration (on oath) against Transubstantiation.
A very ingenious defence of the Declaration, (which indecently calls upon all the members of the Legislature of Great Britain to swear that ono of the articles of a Roman Catholic's belief is " damnable and idolatrous") has been given by the ablest of the Anti-Catholic journals.* It is said, that from any oath that does not involve a point of faith, a dispensation may be obtained, and therefore was it that this form of oath was selected. But if such be the wonderful efficacy of the declaration against transubstantia- tion, why was it not imposed on the Head of the Monarchy ? He is merely called on to swear that he will maintain the Church as established by law, and, in proof of his being an Episcopalian. to participate in the communion according to the rites of the Esta- blished Church ; for which oath, and for which ceremony, accord- ing to the showing of the Anti-Catholics, a dispensation may be obtained. So that in regard to the party whom it is most essential to bind, and for the purpose of indirectly binding whom, the ex- clusory acts were originally passed, there is less regard paid to the strength of the obligation than in regard to a member of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords !
The cath of Supemacy is not so objectionable on the score of dimity as the oath against Transubstantiation ; but it is even more objectionable on the score of truth, which is or ought to be an ingre- dient in oath-taking. How can any man with a safe conscience swear that no foreigner has spiritual power in Great Britain, when he knows that it was expressly for the purpose of excluding from political power all those ,silo acknowledge such a spiritual power Blot flits oaiii was frame.i ? BM, laying aside illy' absurdity of the oath, WIDe Si tot tit' any mast be excluded fruni exercisingi he functions of a citizen because of acknowledging sucli a power ? What is spiritual power ? The power of regulating moil's creeds in respect of matters of religion,—a power claimed and exercised by every church in existence—by the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian as
* The Standard.
well as the Roman Catholic. And what connexion has the fact of a man's acknowledging this power of regulating his belief to be vested in one body or in another, to do with the enactment of wise and just laws, of which all sects and denominations acknowledge the necessity, and in the precise ratio of their enlightenment are zealous to accomplish ?
What we should propose, therefore, leaving fancied (for they are but fancied) securities out of the question, would be simply to sub- stitute for the two oaths now taken, the oath of Supremacy, omitting all mention of spiritual power. In point of fact, at this present moment the laws do not so much exclude Roman Catholics as ad- mit persons of any church or no church, who are not Roman Catholics. We can easily believe that the latter are not so friendly to the Established Church as may be desirable ; but the Presbyte- rians, the Independents, the Unitarians, are still less so. True, the classes of Dissenters are separately small, but in their combi- nation they are nearly as numerous as the Catholics ; and however much they may disagree in minor particulars, (the Catholics themselves, we may observe, have as many sects rs the Protestants,) they are all accordant on one point, their hostility to the existing establishment. Yet how slender a bond of union this has hitherto proved, is obvious from eighty years' experience, during the 'long lapse of which no effort has been made by the Dissenters to dis- turb the National Church. Why should it be imagined that the dislike of the Church will prove an Aaron's rod among the Catho- lics, swallowing up all other desires and wishes, any more than it has done among the Dissenters?
Previous page
