BY: ADMIN | 05.01.2013

TWO:"The Government, if it should determine under existing circumstances to maintain the statutes excluding Roman Catholics from power, must ask for new laws, the old having quite broken down. They must bring in a Bill requiring candidates for seats in Parliament to take at the hustings the oaths of supremacy and allegiance; otherwise they could not prevent Roman Catholics from contesting every vacant county and borough in the United Kingdom, and from becoming ipso facto members of Parliament, should constituencies see fit to elect them. Practically speaking, there might be small risk that either in England or Scotland this result would follow��at least, to any extent. But what was to be expected in Ireland? That every constituency, with the exception, perhaps, of the university and city of Dublin, and of the counties and boroughs of the north, would, whenever the opportunity offered, return Roman Catholics; and that the members so returned being prevented from taking their seats, three-fourths, at least, of the Irish people must remain permanently unrepresented in Parliament. Was it possible, looking to the state of parties in the House of Commons, that such a measure, if proposed, could be carried? For many years back the majorities in favour of repeal had gone on increasing, Session after Session. Even the present Parliament, elected as it had been under a strong Protestant pressure, had swerved from its faithfulness. The small majority which threw out Lord John Russell's Bill in 1827 had been converted, in 1828, into a minority; and among those who voted on that occasion with Mr. Peel, many gave him warning that hereafter they should consider themselves free to follow a different course.The question was argued at great length. It was opposed by Lord North and Pitt, and supported by Fox, and was rejected by one hundred and seventy-six against ninety-eight. The question was raised again in 1789 and 1790, and in both cases was defeated. On the latter occasion Fox introduced the motion, and Mr. Beaufoy, who usually took the lead in it, seconded it. Fox alluded to the very Dissenters on whom Bishop Barrington had thrown so much odium. He acknowledged the hostility of such men as Drs. Priestley and Price to the Church, and to what had taken place across the Channel against the national Church there; but he treated these as warnings to the English hierarchy not to keep too tight a grasp on the obstructions which they had thrown in the way of Dissenters, and contended that the Church's safety depended in allowing a just participation in civil rights, and thus disarming popular resentment. The motion was opposed by Pitt, Burke, Wilberforce, Sir William Dolben, and others. Burke also referred to the destruction of the French Church, and contended that it was not a time to give way to demands for surrender of what he called the safeguards of the English Church. Mr. William Smith, of Norwich, who continued for many years the staunch advocate of the Dissenters, strongly supported the motion; but, on the other hand, a considerable number of members who had voted for the repeal of these Acts had since been warned by their Church-going constituents to tack about, and did so. The motion, therefore, was rejected by two hundred and ninety-four against one hundred and five, and the Dissenters were so convinced of the uselessness of attempting to procure the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts under George III., that the question was never again agitated during this reign. They remained in force till 1828.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet lorem ipsum dolor sit amet Read more >