"At a meeting of the catholic committee at Mr. "Butler's chambers, on the 15th of February 1791,

66

"Mr. Throckmorton,

"Mr. Fermor,

"Mr. Berington brought back the papers, " and the following letter:

"Copy of a Letter to the right reverend "Mr. Charles Berington.

"Dear sir,

"You request to know our opinion of what passed in the public conversation at Longbirch yesterday. We can have but one opinion.

"Mr. Thomas Talbot repeatedly, in the most un"equivocal manner, declared, that he approved of "the oath in its present form, which form, agree

ably to his own requisition, had been accepted "in a public meeting, on the 3d of February "1790;-that from that approbation he should "not recede;-that when, in a letter he lately "addressed to Mr. Gibson in London, he spoke "of having condemned the oath, he meant the "oath as it was originally worded; for, that he "could not mean to say he had condemned that "which he had publicly approved :-that he " even lamented that measures, in the condem"nation of the first oath, had been so precipitately "conducted;-that he thought it unnecessary, at

"this time, to give a formal approbation of the present oath, because his former declaration, he "knew, was on the minutes of the committee, and "must be very publicly known;-that he appre"hended besides, should he (as we requested he "would) give you a written approbation of the "oath, that it might still more irritate the minds " of some men, and tend to widen the unhappy "breach :-Finally, that he admired the temper "and great moderation of the gentlemen of the "committee, whose views, he thought, were most upright, and whose zeal to promote the cause of religion and the interest of their catholic brethren "merited the warmest commendation.

แ

"Such were Mr. Talbot's sentiments, often ex"pressed before us in the course of the day:"and with regard to ourselves, give us leave, sir, "on this occasion, to repeat to you our deliberate "acquiescence in the words of the oath; to lament "the continuance of the opposition which is made "to it; and to testify how much we applaud the general measures which have been hitherto pur"sued by you and the other gentlemen of our "committee, to obtain from parliament a further "redress of grievances.-With sincere regard, we "remain, dear sir, your most affectionate and "humble servants,

66

"Joseph Berington, "Edward Eyre.

Longbirch, February 15th, 1791. Directed

"to the right rev. C. Berington."

The condemnation of the oath by the three vicars-apostolic, did not withhold the committee from continuing their exertions to obtain the passing of the bill, or induce them to take any step for obtaining an alteration in the oath. In a letter, which they addressed to the general body of the English catholics, on the 21st of April 1792, they thus express themselves on the subject:

"With respect to the oath, our sentiments upon "it were these:-The favourable disposition of the "public, and the readiness which the legislature "showed to grant the relief petitioned for, were "considered by us, as owing, in a great measure, "to the protestation. In this, we were by no means "singular. It was the opinion of the best and "wisest of our friends-that part of our fellow

subjects, from whose prepossessions we had most "reason to dread opposition to our relief, were, "after they had considered our protest, cordially "reconciled to the equity of the measure. The

protestant dissenters surrendered, by immediate "conviction, every ancient jealousy and suspicion, "and gave us their good wishes and support. In "a letter, which the noble lord, who moved our "bill in the house of peers, has since been pleased "to write us, his lordship thus expresses himself: "It is highly creditable to the liberal spirit of "the times, that I could have but little distinc"tion in the part that I took. The concurrence "was universal for restoring you to those immu"nities to which your unambiguous abjuration of "any interest, separate from that of the community,

irrefragably established your right. I am con"vinced your sentiments, as citizens, have long "merited that indulgence. But it required your

public profession, as an aggregate body, to au"thorize the legislature to remove restrictions, "which the unfortunate temper of earlier times "had rendered, perhaps, indispensable.'

"After this, you will not be surprised at the partiality of your committee to the oath, as it "was originally framed upon the protestation.

"But this was not all. The protestation was a "solemn instrument, signed, (with few exceptions "indeed), by all the clergy and all the laity. To "the minister, to the houses of parliament, to the "nation, your committee had solemnly presented "it, as an explicit and unequivocal declaration of "the sentiments of the English catholics, as men "and citizens. The oath, (whatever might be the "sentiments of others), was, in the opinion of your "committee, a counterpart of the protestation. To "withdraw the oath, appeared to us receding from "the protestation. To recede from the protes

tation, we held in horror; we thought it an act "of unjustifiable perfidy; we were persuaded it "would cover the body, and ourselves in par"ticular, with ignominy, and make us for ever

66

We

despicable in the eyes of men of honour, principle, consistency of character, or truth. "never, therefore, could be induced to solicit the "withdrawing of the oath.

"But here we rested. When your present oath, "or the oath of 1778, or the Canada oath, or any

other unobjectionable oath was proposed, we never "refused to testify our readiness to take it, if the 'legislature should think proper to impose it on "us; but, at the same time, we uniformly declared, "we had no conscientious objections to the oath as "it then stood. We said, we had signed the pro"testation: that we considered the oath to be a counterpart of the protestation, and that from the protestation we never would recede*.

1. Most of our readers are, we believe, acquainted with the famous passage in St. Augustine, "Audite reges terræ ! "Audi circumcisio! Audi præputium! Non impedio domi"nationem vestram." Hear, ye kings of the earth! Hear, ye circumcised! Hear, ye uncircumcised! I do not IMPEDE your domination.

2. In the oath taken by the Irish clergy and laity, they swear that "they will not exercise any privilege, to which they "are or may be entitled, to disturb and weaken the protestant "religion and protestant government in Ireland."

It has been asked of those, who thought the oath formed on the protestation objectionable,-what is the substantial difference between the word impede, in the passage cited from St. Augustine, the words disturb and weaken in the Irish oath, and the words " affect and interfere," in the oath framed on the protestation?

The difference has not yet been pointed out. Two English lawyers of the greatest eminence, Mr. Hill, the king's first serjeant at law, and Mr. Lee, his majesty's solicitor-general, gave their decided opinions that the words "interfere with," in the oath formed on the protestation, were to be construed of an interference by temporal means. Most unquestionably, these gentlemen, however respectable, were not entitled to a vote in any question respecting the nature or extent of the spiritual powers of the church,-but, most assuredly, when a question arose, what the legislature meant by the words "in"terfere with," the opinion of such men was certainly of great weight.