The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-22 00:00:00

CONSULAR REPORTS.

Mr. BAINES asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether it was intended to issue the con-
sular reports of the secretaries of legation, for the infor-
mation of the mercantile public, at shorter intervals ?
Mr. LAYARD said arrangements had been made at the
Foreign-office for the more speedy issuing of these reports.
He hoped they would be laid on the table in future at the
end of every month.
OFFICE OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
inciuirM.eA: SMITH rose to move for a select committee to
luto the Office of Works and the Office of Woods
and Forests and Land Revenue. He stated that the ex-
penditure of the two offices some years ago was £36,000,
whilst in the last LOg years
increasing
cost £68,000 a year, showing
that there was a
b amount from• year to
year. The hon, member urged that the general
management was so defective
wasdenifecteiceinefficient
and that the
most searching inquiry
imperatively demanded.
There were errors connected withr re-building
demolition of
the State Paper-office
of the new Government offices in Deo-wni. gding of the
street which
ought to be strictly inquired into. Thou with
the woods and forests, there had been many of trheesPeesteattt°es
disforested at the expense of the public which ought not
to have been permitted. The moneyreceived for the timber
which had been cut down and sold, when these forests were
converted into building land, ought to have been paid into the
public exchequer, instead of which it had been appropriated
by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests just as they
pleased, without the slightest attempt to obtain the sanc-
tion of Parliament for its outlay. (Cries of "Divide,
divide.") He should be extremely happy to divide, but
he should not proceed to the division until he had concluded
his statement, and it would be well for hon. members to give
him their attention for a ;short time, because then they
would know which side to take when the division came.
Mr. NEATE thought it very desirable that the coin-

mittee should be granted, believing from personal experi-
ence it was certainly necessary.
Mr. F. PEEL said there had been several i lquiries into
the working of these two departments, °mkt iat here was
no need for any further examination. _

The motion was then negatived with ):it a division.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF AME YI MENT ACT.
Mr. MONSELL then rose to move, in committee of the
whole house, that the chairman be directed to move the
house that leave be given to bring in a bill to substitute an
oath for the oath required to be taken and subscribed by the
statute of the tenth year of the reign of George IV., for
the relief of his -Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.
Though he could not appeal, he said, to authority on poli-
tical decisions, he thought he should receive the kind in-
dulgence of the house in the statements he was about to
make. However unimportant the matter was to the vast
majority of the members of that house, it was a question
which certainly affected the honour and disturbed the con-
science of many persons who had to take this oath. Ho
, thought the time for bringing the subject forward was op-
portune, because very great changes had happened of late
years in the House of Commons in this particular. After
the passing of the Emancipation Act, hon. gentlemen
ranged themselves in groups under theological banners.
All that had in a great measure passed away. Gentlemen
now took their seats in that house according to their poli-
tical views. If that were so, it afforded an additional argu-
Ment for as far as possible having the title of admission to
that house the same for every one who came into it. It
had frequently been said in former debates on this question
that some compact.was made between the Roman Catholics
and the Government of the Duke of Wellington before the
passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. That idea, how-
ever, had been entirely dissipated by the statement of Earl
Russell, that no communication took place before the pass-
ing of that bill, and therefore there couldhave been no com_
pact in the matter. He had been urged by many gentlemen
in that house, as well as out of it, to extend the scope of
his motion, and instead of dealing simply with the
Roman Catholic oath, to propose to substitute for all
the oaths now taken a simple oath of allegiance. (Hear,
hear.) He entirely agreed with the feeling expressed
by honourable gentlemen who said " Hear, hear" to
that proposition. He should very much desire
to have a simple oath of allegiance to take ; but there were
reasons why he did not think it expedient himself to in-
troeluee such a bill. It was obvious that the oath still im-
posed on great functionaries of State, which dealt so
harshly with the Roman Catholic religion, should be got
rid of. (Hear, hear.) What could be more degrad-
ing than to make Lord Wodehouse, when surrounded by
Roman Catholic law advisers and privy councillors, take
an oath declaring the Roman Catholic religion to be
damnable and idolatrous ? (Hear, hear.) He would now
allude to the oath taken by members who did not belong
to the Roman Catholic religion, in which every one swore
that "no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate has any
authority in this realm." He would give Lord Plunket's
view of those words. That noble and learned lord said,
"My idea of the oath of supremacy is, I confess, that in
the strict and literal interpretation of the words it is
impossible to be taken by any one ; for it not only denies
that any foreign Power ought to have ecclesiastical or spi-
ritual authority within this realm, but it denies even that
any foreign Power has such authority. Now if we admit
that there are Roman Catholics in the country, the Pope
must have spiritual power here." He then went on to say
that " what is intended by the oath is, that no foreign
Power has any authority over the Established Church."
That was the interpretation given by Lord Plunket of the
oath taken by Protestant members of that house. He
recollected that the present Lord Chelmsford, when Sir
Frederick Thesiger, had given another interpretation. He
said that the oath meant that, " Legally, no foreign
Power had any authority." (Hear, hear.) But when
two such eminent authorities differed in opinion, it was
high time that the oath should be abolished. At the
same time he thought it would be presumptuous in him
to deal with anything more than the very limited
subject which he was going to propose to the house.
In accordance with the views of the late Sir Robert Peel,
he thought he might make an appeal to the house as to
whether the small number of Roman Catholic members were
likely to do any injustice or injury to the country, even
if they were so disposed. But he confessed he rested his
motion on other and higher grounds. What had been
the Ministerial alterations made during the last 25 years
commencing with the emancipation of the Catholics and
ending with the emancipation of the Jews ? Those changes
had been due to the same confidence that made the house
extend the representation of the people, dispense with the
taking of oaths by Quakers, and the other liberal measures
which had been passed in that period. He asked the house
therefore to carry out this principle of confidence, and to
believe that the Catholic members of that house did not de-
sire to injure the institutions of the country, but to act in
perfect harmony with other members of the house on the
great political questions in which they were engaged. He
was sure there were not more than two gentlemen there
who would not agree that there should be one single mode
of admission to that house for members who occupied the
same position and discharged the same duties ; and that
nothing could be worse than to divide that house into reli-
gious and theological parties, leading to discussions which ,
it was desirable to avoid. He maintainedthat this oath was
an absolutely immoral thing, and tended to diminish the
value of truth in the public mind. Mr. Speaker Onslow—
who occupied the chair in that house for 30 years, and at
the time of the disputed succession, when the prevailing
toast at Oxford was,
" God bless the King, the faith's defender;
God bless—no harm in blessing—the Pretender.
Who that Pretender is, and who that King,
God bless us all, is quite another thing"—
said that oaths were never secure except by the justice of
them, and that no oaths should be put except in a judicial
manner. Now, he maintained they were bound either to re-
peal that oath, or to make it clear and unequivocal. By the
first clause they were required to renounce and abjure the
doctrine that princes excommunicated might be murdered
by their subjects, and they were to assent to this without
any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatso-
ever. This was formerly the Protestant oath, but was re-
moved from them in 1858. The next related to the settlement
of property. Then they were required to "disclaim, dis-
avow, and solemnly abjure" any intention to subvert the
present Church Establishr ent as settled by lawwithin these
realms, and not to disturb the Protestant Government in
the United Kingdom. Now many hon. gentlemen who had
paid attention to this subject—most conscientious and in-
telligent men—had taken opposite views with regard to
that clause. The Duke of Norfolk believed it prevented
Catholics from interfering with Church property at all.
Lord Althorp maintained the Catholics had the same rights
as Protestants in all matters that came before that house.
This oath, however, seemed to apply to the subverting of
the Church by violent and unconstitutional and not by
legislative means. It was imposed on students at Maynooth,
and on mayors, magistrates, and councillors. There was a
difficulty about the interpretation, and he thought it was an
absolute crime to allow such an oath to remain. The Dean
of Westminster in a recent speech had confessed that this
appeared to him to be a-very dangerous and unjustifiable
system, and held forth a temptation to gulph it down with-
out inquiry, or else to act under the paralysing torture of
doubt. This was the oath imposed on Roman Catholic
members of that house ; but it was not so with the hon.
member for Birmingham or the hon. member for Sheffi3ld
who believed the principle of this establishment was erro-
neous,and ought to be got rid of. (A laugh.) Was not that
a monstrous thing ? (Hear.) The Roman Catholic members
were actuated by every desire for the maintenance of the
constitution and the support of their Sovereign, and while
they joined in the prayer for support of the honour and
dignity of the Crown, he thought they ought not to be
bound by any differences which might interfere with the
duties they had to discharge as members of that Legisla-
ture. (Hear.)

Sir- G. GREY said her Majesty's Government gave a
ready assent to the motion that had been made as far as
regarded the preliminary step for the bringing in of the
bill which it was proposed to lay before the house. It
was impossible to deny that the subject was one which
hs demandedopini consideration.opinion
th al ths
these
lle
l d
ee a
rcaotui
ol could
swere
not help
individuallyexpressing
offensive to some, not because they could not conscien-
tthioeurselywmeraekep
exthreessdieoculsaraimtiopnustiiag to themtheycontainoepdin, but because
which
they were supposed to be capable of entertaining. How far
that might apply to oaths imposed on Roman Catholic ruar
tors of that house might be the subject of after
discussion
but as there was no objection to the bringing in of the bill,
it would be better, he thought, to postpone discussion until
it came to a secondreading, when there would be an oppor-
tunity of considering the position of the Protestant religion
as well as the claims submitted by Roman Catholic members.
Mr. NEWDEGATE did not think the present time was
exceedinglyfavourable to this subject. The whole of Europe
was alarmed by a document from the Papacy called the
Encyclical Letter of the Pope, which was of so much im-
portance that the French Government had been called on
to interfere. No one would attribute to the Emperor of the
French the probability of being excited by slight circum-
stances to put himself into the position of fighting the clergy
of France on a qUestion of. that kind. Just at the moment
when the Legislature of France had been occupied with the
gravest discussion of the best mode of dealing with the late
Papal aggression upon every Catholic State, it would be
most unwise for the Legislature of England to lend any
conntenance to that aggression. He was sorry to find the
Home Secretary manifesting upon that occasion the same
leaning towards Ultramontanism of which he had already
given proof. (Laughter.) If the members of the British
House of Commons would not resist the encroachments of
the Pope, whence was a resistance to come? England ought
to be mindful of her duty. Hitherto she had maintained the
great cause of civil and religious liberty against the en-
croachments of a power which, although limited as her im-
mediate sphere of temporal government might be, was
never liore active than of late in opposing the great prin-
ciples of civil and religious liberty throughout the world.
He might cite the action of the Emperor of the French—
he might cite the action of the Government of Spain—with
respect to the Encyclical Letter, to show that Roman
Catholic power; found
ittbneerceesstspetiotnosimnfolinsteainreesdtriinctitohniss
far more absolute than
oath. He felt ho was doing his duty, not only to his
Protestant constituents, but likeygisoto hip
Roman Catholic