OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

177

the late King James, and since his decease pretended to be, and taking upon himself the stile and title of King of England, by the name of James the Third, hath not any right or title whatsoever to the crown of this realm, or any other the dominions thereto belonging; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him. And I do swear, That I will bear faith and true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Anne, and her will defend, to the utmost of my power, against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against her person, crown, or dignity. And I will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known to her Majesty and her successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, which I shall know to be against her, or any of them. And I do faithfully promise, to the utmost of my power, to support, maintain, and defend the limitation and succession of the crown against him the said James and all other persons whatsoever as the same is and stands limited by an Act intituled, An Act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown to her present Majesty, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. And as the same by one other Act intituled, An Act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, is and stands limited after the decease of her Majesty, and for default of issue of her Majesty, to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God."

This oath of abjuration was remodelled, so as to apply to the circumstances of the time in 1766, including all essential conditions, obligations, and penalties.

In 1791, all the obligations and penalties being still retained, a form

of words was substituted (31 Geo. III. c. 32) expressly for the use of Catholics, which in certain cases they were permitted to take in lieu of the foregoing. The Catholic was required to declare, "I, A B, do hereby declare that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion." After which, the following form of oath was admissible: "I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Third, and him will defend to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever that shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them, and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown; which succession, by an Act intituled, An Act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of these realms: And I do swear that I do reject and detest, as an unchristian and impious position, that it is lawful to murder or destroy any person or persons whatsoever, for or under pretence of their being hereticks or infidels; and also that unchristian and impious principle, that faith is not to be kept with hereticks or infidels: And I further declare, that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated by the Pope and Council, or any authority of the see of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any person whatsoever: And I do promise, that I will not hold, maintain, or abet any such opinion, or any other opinions contrary to what is expressed in this declaration : And I do declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or in

EXCLUSION OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 179

directly, within this realm: And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever; and without any dispensation already granted by the Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, or any person whatever; and without thinking 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 or void. So help me God."

Such was the situation, with regard to the exclusion of Catholics, immediately prior to the events described in the next chapter. It was not only Catholics who were aggrieved. Large numbers of Protestant dissenters were barred from holding office, or entering the professions, by their inability to accept all the conditions imposed, so it may be fairly presumed that a large proportion of the petitions said to have emanated from Protestants were got up and signed for and in the interest of dissenting bodies, who regarded Catholic emancipation as the stepping-stone to their own emancipation also.

CHAPTER XXV.

MODIFICATION OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

THE

HE newly-constituted Catholic Association that was formed in defiance of the Act for the suppression of its predecessor, acquired strength and received support from an increasing number of adherents; and it had so successfully evaded prosecution that when the Suppression Act expired, two years after it was passed, no attempt was made to renew it, so the associatian extended its ramifications and its collection of funds without legal recognition or interference.

Previously to 1826, the county representation of Ireland in Parliament had rested almost exclusively with the Protestant landed proprietors, who successfully exercised all the arts of electioneering to secure the return of their own nominees, the voters being so much at their mercy. In 1825 it for the first time occurred to the leaders of the association to use its influence in the return of members. As Catholics, in consequence of the oaths, were not admissible to Parliament, the original idea was to promote the election of men who, though Protestants, were known to be in favour of the Catholic claims. An opportunity offered itself in the general election of 1826, when, by the influence of the association, Mr. Villiers Stuart was newly returned for Waterford county, in opposition to Lord George Beresford; and in Louth county a still more important contest was conducted by the association. There it procured the nomination of Mr. Dawson, a Liberal retired barrister, in opposition to Mr. Fortescue, the nominee of Lord Roden. Mr. Shiel went from Dublin into Louth, and rendered valuable assistance, Mr. Dawson was attended to the polls by immense multitudes of forty-shilling freeholders, who marched with him into

REPEAL OF THE TEST ACTS.

181

Dundalk with green banners flying. The contest was close, for the influence and terrorism of the anti-Catholic landed proprietors was extreme, so that it needed all the force of the association to bring up the voters. Mr. Dawson was duly elected; and this, with some other less conspicuous triumphs, gave great encouragement to the association.

This kind of thing went on until 1828, when, Parliament having opened early in February, a petition was presented, signed by 800,000 Catholics, praying for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. This was done, not for the relief of Catholics, for the Acts did not apply in Ireland, but in order to create sympathy for reform amongst the Dissenters of England.

The petition had the desired effect. Within the same month, on the 26th of February, Lord John Russell (who was then leader of the Whig opposition) moved for the repeal of the Acts. His motion was languidly resisted by Peel, the feebleness of his opposition being excused on the ground that it affected Dissenters and Englishmen rather than Catholics and the Irish, and a resolution in favour of repeal was carried by 293 to 237. The bill which resulted from the resolution passed through both Houses almost without remark, and became law in April. The moral effect of it was far greater in proportion than the changes it actually made. It proved to be the turning-point in a course of legislation that had been disastrous, and was made the ground for more considerable concessions; and from those points of view, it may be regarded with great satisfaction, but, like so many overrated enactments, it really did far less in itself than it is popularly supposed to have done, and when spoken of (as it too commonly is) as the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the description is extremely delusive. So far as every one of the oaths and declarations referred to in the last chapter are concerned, it left them untouched, unnoticed, and unmentioned; it left them precisely as they were, without the slightest qualification; all that it did was to repeal "so much of several Acts as imposes the necessity of receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as a qualification for certain offices