The Express.
London, England, 1866-03-16 00:00:00

OUR CONTEMPORARLM.

{THIS DAY.)

THZ VOTZ ON SRI PARLIANNrrANY OATHS BILL.
The Opposition, in the opinion of the Times, de-
serve a eertais feeling of gratitude for having spared she
eou•try • series of irritating religious debates, but they
spoiled the effect of their ooncession by adopting en amend-
ment calling upon parliament to make perpetual
one of the most bootless controversies that was
ever waged. The unhappy sentence oonstituting
the latter part of the amendment seems to
nits to • degree never before attained, even in
the verbiage of political oaths, the two qualities of futi-
lity and mischief. Everyone knows that the authority
claimed for the Pope in Eegland is an ecoledastical
authority, binding on the couciences of catholic@ in
mitten

connected with the doctrine and discipline
of the church, sod that the admission of it does not
affect their administration of or their obedieoce to the
law of England. Yet to combat an imaginary danger, to
deter men from holding what as a matter of notoriety they
do not bold, Yr. Disraeli would enforce the use of lan-
guage which numbers of Roman cotholics look upon as an
abridgment of their religious liberty and • restriction of
the rights conferred in 1829. The proposed form, too, by
stating that the prince or prelate has no authority " is any
of the courts" actually limits by implication the autbor:ty
which it is meant to illerm. The Time wishes the majority
against the amendment 'aid been greater, for it may be
that the smallness of it will spooling° the House of Lords
to restore the rejected form of words to the oath. Such a
course would be most unfortunate.

The Daily Naos thinks the government acted wisely per-
haps in not resisting every part of Mr. Disraeli's scorredgeort.
If timid persons prefer that what is clearly ►ad mosses-
rily implied should be openly expressed, it would be prudish
sad pedantic to refuse to humour them. Indeed, if the
government had not offered this oonoession of form before
the imprudent speech of Mr. Dil: on, with his far-fetched and
fantastic scruples which encourage the gloomy misgivings
of Mr. Newdegate and the fanatical alarm of Mr. Whalley,
they could not have withheld It without running the risk
of defeat after he bad spoken. With regard to
the other part of the amendment. Sir H. Cairns
costends that the declaration does not limit the religious
freedom of Roman eatholies, but the authorities of that
church say that the words of abjuration go beyond his in-
terpretation of *sir meaning, and the conclusion is obvious,
that words should sot be used which, after every explora-
tion that can be offered, churehmeo and lawyers fail to un-
derstood is the same sense. The conservative party have
adopted the principle of a uniform oath ; but they have Dot
yet acquiseeid in as uesseterian use, though uniformity is
desirable chiefly in order to banish sectarian feeling. The
words which Mr. Disraeli has proposed, and which the
House of 001111110111 has rejested, were really levelled at

members of only one church, though their special direeiloe
was veiled by the inclusion of others within their rang*.
The Rowe of Lords will, we trust, swept the decision of
the majority in the Commons. Only by doing so can they
avoid the rekladliog of an angry controversy.
Ye its amended form the oath henceforth to be taken
will be uoobjectionable. the Post Woks, but those who

interpret it literally might fairly douht whether it was
consonant with the principles of the English coustitutioe.
No one will pretend that the people of this country have
not the right of superseding the purely parliamentary title by
which the House of Hanover reigns, and create another
one, but yet if this be so, how with any coasistency can
those who are the representatives of the people hied them-
selves by a solemn oath under no circumstances to disturb
the provisions of sa act of parliament passed up earls of a
*eatery and a half ago? The anomaly comes of our habit
of " @weal log terribly.• We take oath' which we
flatter ourselves we will keep, but which, in case of
necessity, we would have no compunction al out breaking.
If we bad a sovereign who emulated the cooduct of the
present King of Prussia, who is an nnexceptiosable pro-
testaot, why should every member of the great council of
the nation be booed by oath to reader him gaseous*?
Have we swept away the then lof Divine right to substi-
tute the thraldom of an irrevocable oath ?

The Herald says that the essential part of Mr. Disraeli's
amendment was accepted last night by the ministers, sad
tint that which followed and was rejected is the lame
question. The result is one upon which the oonservative
party must be congratulated. Even be I the point still in
dispute, after the first surrender of the cabinet, sot been
pressed to a division, the policy o' the ministerial teenier
tin had been effectually controlled. For it amottoted to
this, that Sir Gimp Grey proposed to ignore is hie sew
parlieunestary oath the Act a Settlement and the laws of
the regal succession in England. To that Mr. Disraeli de-
murred, and the house followed him so readily
that the minister gave way. The Herald thinks
that the bill, in in mutilated state, has vary
little &saes of being pared into a law. At any
rate, a duty is left to the House of Lords, which that as-
sembly, the Herald imagines, will not neglect, of intro-
ducing in some feral or other an acknoeledgment of the
royal supremacy.
The Tdeprap4 remark, that the opposition prudently de-
clined sny suateised argument as to the merits of Mr.
Disraeli's amendment. They had gathered in unwonted
strength, prepared, if possible, to uphold the canoe of in-
tolerance by the weight of numbers, and, la consequence,
they wished to record their votes at the earliest moment
possible. Ens speakers on their owe side could neon
but an hapatieet hearing. Probably the tories rely on the
bill brie s rejected in the House of Lords ; bat, after each
au expression of opinion, we trust the Peen will not be W-
arned enough to constitute themselese the cha um. us of
intolerance.
The Star pictorn Mr. Disraeli sitting down with a feel-
ing of nausea, Nobly occasioned by the distastefulness of
the subject and the folly "of the gentlemen with whom
be hat the haunt to act,* tooontsin an o.th which should
tenet le be • mettle, and yet eitoula not win to boa tousle
—en oath which, like the fabled shield, should be
,won to as sternly protestant on the one side, and
sot execrated as anti-Roman catholic on the other.
One teapot conceive any declaration more likely to give
narrow views of the royal authority than one solely cos-
Seed to the offset that the Pope is sot entitled to bias •
judgment in hanoo, to withhold a distringae in Chancery,
or to invalidate a verdict at nisi pries, Mr. Whiteeide
says he cannot imagine anybialy denying then things.
Exactly : that is why the Star cannot understead 222
gentlemen, eves with guns Elisabeth for their guide, in-
sisting that they shall be continually affirmed on oath.
The delrertiorr says the time has come when all who
value our protestant Constitution must dal with rept*
moieties resets les with the decision which the exigencies
of the ease require. No terms most be held with them.
If the protestant feeling of the country is only aroused to
Its proper pitch the Oaths Bill of ministers will yet be
defeated. When it coons to • third reading, it may be
either rejected, or the insjnity—which is but • small one
in so large a house—be so fez reduced, that ministers will
be compelled to abandon it. And if so, at least one cheek
will thus be given to the alarming advance, of popery.

THE CHURCH BATE QUESTION AND NE. GLADSTONeB
CLAUSE.