"that I am, or can be, acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part "thereof, although the pope or any other person "or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with or "annul the same, or declare that it was null and "void,"

The act of the 31st of his late majesty, c. 32, may be divided into six parts:-The first contains the declaration and oath, afterwards referred to in the body of the act, and prescribes the method of taking it:-The second is a repeal of the statutes of recusancy, in favour of persons taking the oath, prescribed by the act:-The third is a toleration, under certain regulations, of the religious worship of the roman-catholics, and of their schools for education:The fourth enacts, that, in future, no one shall be summoned to take the oath of supremacy, prescribed by the 1st William and Mary, s. 1, c. 8, and 1st Geo. I. s. 23 c. 13, or the declaration against transubstantiation, required by the 25th Car. 2;-that the 1st William and Mary, s. 1, c. 9, for removing papists or reputed papists from the cities of London and Westminster, shall not extend to romancatholics taking the appointed oath ;-and that no peer of Great Britain or Ireland, taking that oath, shall be liable to be prosecuted for coming into his majesty's presence, or into the court or house, where his majesty resides, under the 30th Car. II. s. 2, c. 1: The fifth part of the act repeals the laws requiring the deeds and wills of roman-catholics

penses persons acting as a counsellor at law, barrister, attorney, clerk, or notary, from taking the oath of supremacy, or the declaration against transubstantiation, for acting in those capacities.

The double land-tax, being imposed on catholics by the annual land-tax act, a repeal of it could not be effected by any prospective act, but it was repealed, by omitting from the annual land-tax act, the clause imposing it.

An alteration in the act, which was made in the house of lords, during its passage through that house, raised a doubt, whether to entitle a romancatholic to the benefits of the act of the 18th of his late majesty, it was not necessary to take both the oath prescribed by that act, and the oath prescribed by the 31st of his late majesty. To obviate this doubt, the act of the 43d of his late majesty was passed: it entitles persons taking the oath prescribed by the act of the 31st of his late majesty, to all the benefits of the act of the 18th of his late majesty *.

In the life of Mr. Pitt, recently published by Dr. Tomline, the bishop of Winchester, a short account is given of the passing of the act of 1791, mentioned in the text: it occasioned considerable surprise among the catholics, and produced from a secular clergyman of their communion, the following letter to his lordship:

"My lord,

"In your lordship's Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Pitt, vol. ii. "p. 400, occurs the following passage:

"A petition had been presented to the house of com"mons on the 7th of May 1789, by certain persons, calling "themselves catholic dissenters; implying by that title, that they did not believe all the tenets generally maintained by

When the bill was discussed in the house of lords, lord Thurlow objected to it some verbal "roman-catholics. The petitioners stated, that they and other "papists were subject to various penal laws, on account of "principles, which they were supposed to entertain, dangerous "to society, and totally repugnant to political and civil liberty; "and, therefore, they thought it due to their country and to "themselves publicly to disclaim and protest against the five "following doctrines:-1. That princes excommunicated by "the pope, or by any authority of the see of Rome, may be "deposed or murdered by their subjects or other persons. "2. That implicit obedience is due to the orders and decrees " of popes and general councils, even if they require open "resistance to government, the subversion of the laws and "liberties of the country, and the extermination of all persons "not professing the roman-catholic religion. 3. That the "pope by his spiritual power can dispense with the obligation "of any compact on oath. 4. That not only the pope, but " even a priest, has power, at his will and pleasure, to pardon "sina, and consequently can absolve from the guilt of perjury, ❝ rebellion, and high treason. 5. That faith is not to be kept "with heretics *.'

"ALLOW ME TO OBSERVE, my lord, that the account given "above, so far from being accurate, contains a gross mis"representation; which, from respect to your lordship, I am "willing to believe is not a wilful one. It is true, that the "petitioners in 1789 styled themselves Catholic Dissenters. "It is equally true, that many catholics objected to the title "assumed by the petitioners; and for this reason: they con"ceived the term Dissenters to be appropriate to those who "deserted the ANCIENT FAITH in the sixteenth century, not to "such as were inheritors of it in the present times. But no ." thinking man, before your lordship, ever insinuated, that the "petitioners were dissenters from other catholics, in respect to the doctrines against which they protested.

*"'These five doctrines are to be found in the decrees of councils, and "other authentic documents of the church of Rome, and have always been "considered as forming part of the faith of papists.""

inaccuracies, but candidly observed that it had been so altered from its original form, that the

"Neither did the petitioners insinuate, that the tenets which "they disclaimed were maintained by any other catholics "whomsoever. They knew, indeed, that such tenets had "been imputed to other catholics as well as to themselves : "but, as they were petitioning for themselves only, they con"fined the disclaimer to themselves.

"It is not, however, of these inaccuracies, but of the note "which follows them, that the catholics chiefly complain. "The statement in that note is not only erroneous in point of "fact, but is calculated to make on the public mind an impres"sion most injurious to their interests, by representing them as ❝ members of a church which inculcates, as part of its faith,' "doctrines subversive of civil allegiance and moral duty; doc"trines not to be tolerated by any government, nor in any "society. On what this representation may be grounded few "readers of the Memoirs will stay to inquire; they will adopt "it as true on the authority of the writer.

"The catholics deny, that the five doctrines in question "ever formed part of their faith. They challenge your lord"ship to prove your assertion: they call on you to produce, "if you can, the decrees of councils, and the authentic docu"ments of the church of Rome in which they are to be found.' "If you cannot, they trust that you will have the courage to

come forward, and with the honesty of a man, and the cha"rity of a christian, acknowledge that you have been misled. "Your lordship says, that these five doctrines have al"ways been considered as forming part of the faith of papists :' "but by whom? By catholics? Most certainly not; they "have always disclaimed them. By their adversaries? But you must be aware, that little credit is due to adversaries, especially when the passions of those adversaries have been "heated, and their judgments warped by theological contro

66

versy.

"But what is the meaning of the words 'have always been?' They seem to imply, that the doctrines in question were "not only considered formerly, but are also considered now,

* See the note in the preceding page.

framers of it would hardly know the bill again. This circumstance has been published more than once, with a view to discredit both the committee and the gentlemen, whom they employed to frame the bill but, while lord Thurlow's charge of inaccuracy has been sedulously brought forward, his expression respecting the alterations which the bill underwent, after it had been finally settled by them, has been as sedulously concealed.

"as making part of the catholic faith. Is it, however, pos"sible, that so unfounded a notion can exist at the present "day? Your lordship cannot be ignorant, that in 1788 the "catholic universities of Louvain, Douay, Paris, Alcala, Val"ladolid, and Salamanca, when those learned bodies were "consulted to satisfy Mr. Pitt, spurned the imputation as most "foul, false, and calumnious. You cannot be ignorant, that, in "1791, Pius the sixth, in his letter to the roman-catholic arch"bishops of Ireland, not only condemned these doctrines, but "declared that they had been imputed to the holy see merely "for the purpose of calumniating it. You cannot be igno66 rant, that the British and Irish catholics seized the first "opportunity which was offered them of disclaiming such doc"trines upon oath. You cannot be ignorant, that that very "oath had been prescribed by the legislature as satisfactory " evidence of the religious principles of those who should take "it. What better proof can be desired, or devised? The de"claration of the chief bishop of the catholic church, the tes"timony of the catholic universities, the oaths of the catho"lics, both laity and clergy, of the united kingdom, and the "authority of the legislature, all combine to show, that these "five doctrines form no part of the catholic faith. Certainly "the most obstinate prejudice must yield to evidence so gene, "ral and conclusive.

"I have the honour to be, &c.

"London, June 12, 1821.

A CATHOLIC."

* "See substance of Sir John Cox Hippisley's speech, May 18, 1810. App. p. lv."