fubjects in "juftice and mercy." They acknowledge their fovereign and fwear to be loyal. His future conduct, and the inconftancy of his will, are left to him who holds in his hands the hearts of kings, who, by the laws of England "can do no wrong.' ?? The legislative power retains a right, and has the means of examining in what manner the laws are executed or infringed, by bringing the king's counsellors to a ftrict account. "But whatever may be the "iffue of this examination," fays Montesquieu, "the king's perfon is facred, the moment he "is arraigned or tried, there is an end of liber66 ty. "The conftitution then is equally in danger, of being overturned by a refufal of allegiance, "applicable not only to the regal office "of the king, but to his natural perfon and -"blood royal."† Objections from the Hibernian Magazine. Firft: "No man can safely swear to a thing "of which he is not certain. Now the teft "obliges the Catholics to decide by oath, that ' they have pofitive and clear reasons not to "believe that any foreign prince ought to have any civil pre-eminence within this realm. "Now, what individual can pretend to fo deep Spirit of Laws, vol. 1. p. 181. an an infight into the much debated rights of "princes as to determine with certainty on fo "difficult and fo abftrufe a question; especially "as the words ought and right, extend to any "kind of right, whether natural, i. e. by right "of blood, or acquired." Answer. The test obliges the Catholics to no fuch thing. All it requires is a negative belief, or a fufpence of belief, concerning the rights of foreign princes, (and I do declare that I do not believe.) The paragraph is worded in a negative ftile. But in a negative oath, ignorance of another man's right exculpates the person who fwears from perjury. A familiar example will fet the matter in a clear light. Paul is in poffeffion of a farm from time immemorial; this poffeffion, and several other ftrong reafons incline me to believe, that he is the only rightful and lawful owner. Peter revives a dormant claim, which in my opinion is but a fhadow. A magiftrate interrogates me in this manner: Do you believe that Peter ought to have a right to Paul's farm? I answer, I do declare that I do not believe it. In the name of goodnefs, whatever Peter's title may be, do I perjure myself in fwearing to what is really my opinion? The word right is not mentioned in the oath, and in cafe it were, the objector's distinction, betwixt betwixt natural and acquired would give him no advantage; for with regard to civil preeminence and jurifdiction over free ftates, there is no right when the laws of nations are against it. In France, the Salique law excludes females from inheriting the throne. Has the king's eldeft daughter any right to it? In Portugal, where the crown is hereditary, the law difqualifies every stranger who lays claim to the throne by right of blood. Have foreign princes, though related to the royal family, any right to civil preeminence within that realm ? Secondly: "The words, ought to have, seem to have a retrospect to the revolution, whereby James II. was deprived of the throne, be cause he was a Roman Catholic: for fome "members have affirmed, that no one could "take this oath, but on revolution-principles. "If this be fo, I swear what is equivalent to this "The being a Roman Catholic is a juft and reafonable difqualification for not enjoying hereditary right. What Proteftant in his senses would not think me perjured when I fwear in this manner." Answer. Every Proteftant, if fuch were the meaning of the oath, but neither the fenfe nor letter letter of the oath is fufceptible of fuch a forced conftruction. The framers of the teft have blended together an oath of allegiance, and the old declaration against Popery, compiled by James I. In this declaration, the words ran thus: "And I do declare, that I do not believe "that the pope of Rome, &c. hath or ought to have any authority, ecclefiaftical or fpi * ritual, within this realm." By this declaration tranflated into English, and still to be seen in the ftatutes, the Roman Catholics were obliged to renounce the pope's fpiritual fupremacy, otherwise they had nothing to expect but halters and gibbets from our beloved Stuarts. The Senators of 1775, 'more humane than the royal pedant of 1603, have expunged in favour of diftreffed fubjects, the words ecclefiaftical and Spiritual, and fubftituted temporal and civil in their place. Thus have they enabled the Catholics, to testify their loyalty without swearing against their confcience. The words "ought "to have," bave then no retrofpect to James II. who deprived himself of the throne, by quitting the realm, after having abdicated the conftitution, by arrogating to himfelf a difpenfing power. Thirdly" Marriage is founded on a civil. contract, though of divine inftitution, and "a facra Habet vel debet habere. 66 a facrament in the belief of Catholics. In denying the pope's civil power directly or indirectly within this realm, fo far at least I deny "the church's authority over a facrament." Answer. A flat fophifm! The pope has no civil power direct or indirect in this realm, over any facrament, but a spiritual power ratione Sacramenti, precisely as a facrament, and fo far it is a fpiritual thing. In virtue of my ordination, I have power to confecrate bread and wine, have I any civil power over the baker's shop, or the vintner's cellar? Fourthly: "I fwear that I do not think that I "can be abfolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although any authority what"foever shall dispense with or annual the fame. "Now, authority whatsoever is of universal im 66 port. It includes the fupreme authority of "the state, the authority of God himself. Can <6 a Catholic. or Proteftant fwear that neither 66 66 God, nor the state can absolve him of any part of this declaration? whereas God can deprive a tyrannical king of his throne, and the "fupreme authority of the ftate can abfolve a fubject from his allegiance, and permit him to "retire to whatever place he chuses, as a master "can manumit a flave." Answer. |