The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-27 00:00:00

ntE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 27. 1865.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.
The Earl of DEVON, iu moving the second reading of
this bill, said ho was anxious to see every remnant of in-
tolerance towards their Roman Catholic fellow subjects
abolished, and the object of the bill had his cordial approval.
Having read the terms of the declaration required to be taken
by Roman Catholics before they could take their seats in
either House of ;parliament, which he ridiculed, be said
there was no reason to doubt the loyalty of the Roman
Catholics of this country, and the imposition of this oath
was an unnecessary insult to that body. He denied that the
oath afforded any additional guarantee for the fidelity of
the Roman Catholics to the constitution and the Crown,
because, as it was compulsory under the circum-
stances, there was no security that it would
prove binding on the consciences of the members of that
persuasion. They should rely on the growing intelli-
gence of the Roman Catholics and the respect they
entertained for the Established Church, and not on an
oath of this description. He contended that the oath was
also open to the objection, that it limited and fettered the
discretion of members of both houses in the discussions
that took place. He alluded to the attempt that had
been made in 1829 to disqualify Roman Catholics f rom voting
on matters affecting the interest of the Established
Church, and he referred to statements made on that occa-
sion of certain distinguished speakers discussing the
attempt. He denied that therewas such a compact in fact;
and even if there had been, the Parliament of 1829 had no
power to fetter the discretion of the Parliament of 1865.
They might be reminded, perhaps, of the recent encyclical
letter of the Pope, and of the papal aggression in 1851; but
he did not think that either of those events warranted the
slightest apprehension for the Protestantism of the country
or the Protestant Church. He believed we neither required
nor were benefited by the exaction from Catholics of such
declarations as were contained in this oath.
The Earl of DERBY, in moving that the bill be read a
second time that day six months, said that he felt great re-
luctance in opposing the bill, but he deemed it neither wise
nor expedient to adopt a measure which would subvert one
of the leading principles of the settlement of 1829. For his
own part he lived in a county which contained a larger
than usual proportion of Roman Catholics, with many of
whom he was on terms of intimacy and friendship ; he was
the owner of an estate in Ireland, on which he had many
Roman Catholic tenants, and he defied any human being to
say that either in his social relations or in his action as a
landlord he had ever made the slightestdistinction between
Protestants and Catholics. For the 43 years of his political
life he had taken an active part in relieving Roman Catho-
lic members from disabilities which he thought unjust; and
he bad on that ground exposed himself to the animadversion
of the ultra-Protestant members of his own party. This
was not, however, a question to be decided by personal
considerations ; it was a high political question, and was to
be dealt with as such. Especially at the present time, he
thought it unwise and inexpedient to bring forward such a
measure. Until the bill was brought forward there was no
question likely to excite angry feelings among the electors
at the approaching elections. It might be good electioneer-
ing, but was it statesmanlike to throw before the electors
. a measure more likely than any other to excite those feel-
ings which he deprecated ? Was it was for the sake of
the Roman Catholics ? He thought nothing was more
likely to prejudice their cause than to bring forward what
he would call imaginary grievances at a time of excite-
ment. Then by whom was this bill brought forward ?
When Lord Nugent brought forward the petition for the
repeal of Roman Catholic disability in 1821, it was signed
by 8,000 persons, including several peers, and all the best
Catholic blood in England. Such men then petitioned
Parliament because they had then a real grievance. But
where were those men now ? What petitions were there
in favour of this bill ? Where were now the great historic
Roman Catholic families ? Not one of them was now here.
And why? Because not one of them felt that they had
any substantial grievance, or that they were deprived
by this oath of anything to which they had a right—be-
cause they know that the terms of this oath were not im-
posed by a grudging Protestant parliament, but were
suggested by Roman Catholic prelates and lawyers, and
were the terms on which they expressed their willingness
to receive the Catholic Emancipation Act. The question of
the desirableness of having only one oath was not now be-
fore them, for this bill would still leave a special oath to bo
taken by Roman Catholics as distinguished from Protes-
tants. With regard to the clause in the oath directed
against the papal supremaey, that was originally imposed
by a Catholic Parliament before the time of henry VIII.,
and was taken by that monarch and by both Catholics and
Protestants in the time of Elizabeth without the slightest
objection. It was-not, as Lord Plunket well said, a test of
religion, but a test of loyalty. In 1821 Lord Plunket intro-
duced a measure intended to enable Roman Catholics to
take the oath of supremacy by defining its meaning, without
however altering its terms. It was then the same as now.
During the long contest which ended in the Roman Catholic
emancipation, the Roman Catholics and their advocates ad-
mitted that security should be taken for the stability of the
Throne and the Church. He did not believe for a moment
that the Roman Catholics held the doctrines which they
were called upon to renounce by this oath ; but at the same
time most of those imputations were traceable to some acts
of the Pope, or to some passages in the works of their
casuists. Therefore he did not think it too much, nor did
the Catholics think before 1829 that it was too much that
they should be called upon expressly to renounce such doc-
trines.. The measure of 1829 was passed by the Government
of Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington as the least of
two dangers. The unreformed Parliament of that day was
far in advance of the liberality of that time in regard to the
treatment of Roman Catholics. The Emancipation Act was
distasteful both to the groat .body of the people and to the
Crown, and it would therefore have been very injudicious
if they had not surrounded it with such restrictions and
safeguards as might conciliate popular feelings and remove
popular apprehensions, while they were not offensive to
the Roman Catholics, by whose representatives they were
suggested. It was admitted even by the Rev. Dr. Doyle,
that after the Revolution of 1688 Parliament was justi-
fied, by the disloyalty of the Roman Catholics, and by
their attachment to the Stuarts, in passing restrictive
laws against the Roman Catholics, although not in•going
to the full length of the penal code which they then
enacted. By the middle of the eighteenth century matters
had changed; the new dynasty had become established; the
cause of the Stuarts was hopeless. In 1757 a declaration
was put forth on behalf of the Roman Catholics abjur-
ing any wish to attack the Protestant Church, and pro-
mising that, if they were admitted to the elective fran-
chise, they would not use it to the detriment of that
Church. They also renounced any wish to disturb the
settlement of property, and declared that they did not
hold the doctrines referred to in the oath which was now
so much complained of. In 1792 a petition was presented
to the Parliament of Ireland by the Roman Catholics of
Ireland, in which similar professions of opinion, similar
renunciations, and similar promises were made. In con-
sequence of this the. Catholics were admitted by the Irish
Parliament to the Irish parliamentary franchise. He came
next to a petition presented to the Imperial Parliament in
1808. That contained declarations similar in effect to those
he had already quoted ; and these were represented in other
petitions presented in 1812, by Mr. Grattan in 1813, and by
Mr. Plunket in 1821. In that year Mr. Plunket distinctly
declared on their behalf that they had no desire to disturb
the Protestant Church, but that they would, on the contrary,
resist any attempts at its overthrow, from whomsoever
they might proceed. In 1825 Archbishop Murray said that
he had no reason to think that any part of the Roman Ca-
tholics desired to obtain for their own Church the property
of the Protestant Church, and he expressed the willingness
of his co-religionists to give any reasonable satisfaction on
this point ; and, in fact, a declaration that they were not
hostile to the Protestant Church, and would do nothing to
injure it, was in the following year signed and made
by3oßoman Catholic bishops and archbishops. Mr. O'Con-
nell and other eminent Roman Catholics had expressed
themselves to the same effect. It would be a gross injustice
to Sir R. Peel to suppose that he introduced these oaths
merely as a concession to popular clamour. Undoubtedly
he believed that they would act as a restraint upon Roman
Catholic members of Parliament who might be disposed to
attack the Church. 11e (Lord Derby) drew abroad distinction
between the different portions of the oath. He had no objec-
tion to release the Roman Catholics froradeclan'ng that they
did not hold the doctrine that princes excommunicated by
the Pope might be deposed or murdered by their subjects.
He was also willing to give up the clause declaring that
the person taking it took it without mental reservation or
equivocation. He quite agreed that this part of the oath
was absurd, and if it was offensive to the Catholics he
be
was quite willing that it should swept away. ne might
be asked why, if such were his views, ho did not allow
the bill to pinto committee and then move an amend-
ment ? But the very amendment which ho had sketched
out had been rejected in the House of Commons ; and ho
did not think that it was in general desirable to ask that
house to accept an amendment which they had already
rejected. He had indeed offered that if the Government
would support the arrangement which he proposed he
would not oppose the second reading. He would again repeat
that offer; but if the Government insisted that the bill
should pass as a whole, then he must oppose it as a whole—
believing, as ho did, that it contained provisions which it
%was desirable to retain. There was in Ireland a strong belief
on the part of the ignorant peasantry, that the forfeited
esti rtes would one day or other be restored to their ancient
posi3essors. No doubt that was a wild and absurd delu-
sion; but it was not desirable to encourage it, by abandon-

ing the clause which bound every member of Parliamen
to defend the existing settlement of property. But his
noble friend (Earl Devon) said that the oath was open to
this objection, that it only bound the conscientious and
sincere ; but what oath did more ? Then it was said that
the oath was ambiguous ; but Mr. Justice Shee, the late Mr,
Lucas, and other eminent Roman Catholics, had expressly
stated that they considered it bound them not to do any-
thing to the prejudice of the Protestant Church. It only
precluded them from giving any vote which in their inmost
consciences they believed would be, and which they in-
tended to be, injurious to the Established Church. He
therefore maintained that the oath was a real protection to
the Church, while its repeal would be a serious blow to that
Church, by leading to the impression that Parliament was
no longer in favour of maintaining it. In the course of the
discuEsion in the Lower House, an M.P. said that the object
of the bill was to "unmuzzle the senators." But to " un-
muzzle" them for what? Clearly that they might do the very
thing which it was desired to prevent thorn. Unmuzzlo them
because they were harmless? No, but because they wanted to
bite. (Laughter.) The very fact that they were asked to re-
peal this oath on such a ground showed the necessity of
retaining it. He believed that the removal of the.se restric-
tions, which did not impose any burden upon the Catholics,
would open the door to a serious attack on the Protestant
Established Church. Could they say that there was no
disposition on the part of the Catholics to attack that Church,
when they saw that associations were being formed to send
members to Parliament for the purpose of voting against
it ? Such was not a time when they could assent to a mea-
sure like the present. If it was to be brought forward, it
should have been brought forward by the Government on
their own responsibility. They phould not have sheltered
themselves behind a respectable but perfectly insignificant
person like the gentleman who had introduced it, and have
thrown the question loose before the country on the eve of
a general election. He would if he could have relievedthe
Roman Catholics from parts of the oath which were dis-
tasteful, to them without abandoning those which he consi-
dered essential to the safety of the Church ; butthe Govern-
ment would not allow that to be done, and that being the
case, he must stand by the Church which he had supported
ever since he could think, and which he was not likely to
abandon for any fancied advantage when he was approach-
ing the confines of old age. (Cheers.)
Earl RUSSELL—I think it quite unnecessary for the
noble earl to have said, as he did, that it was with no preju-
dice against the Roman Cathlic body or against the religion
of the Pope that he opposed the second reading of this bill.
This is a very grave question, raised after the Roman Catho-
lic question has been settled for 36 years, and under circum-
stances in which your lordships ought to reflect seriously
before you alter the oath. But how comes this question be-
fore your lordships? A most respectable member of the
Roman Catholic body brought forward the bill ; and I be-
lieve that the great body of theßoman Catholics were ready
to respond to the principle of the bill, though many of them
do not feel any personal grievance in consequence of the
oath. There are several objections to the words of the oath,
and I will first allude to those parts which the noble earl is
willing to get rid of. He is willing to abolish that part
which denies that princes excommunicate may be lawfully
deposed or murdered. Everybody will agree not to impose
that part. And he is also willing to strike out that part
which says that the oath is taken without mental equivo-
cation. But when the noble earl says that he stated to the
Government that he was ready to part with those parts of
the oath it appears to me that he takes away without any
great benefit one of the chief objections to this proceeding.
It has been said that the chief objection to the course taken is
that the matter was settled by Parliament years ago, with the
consent of all parties, and that the settlement ought not
to be disturbed. But, surely, when you consent to alter
the oath, and take away that part which is peculiarly offen-
sive in the terms, you would take away all other parts of it
if they formed substantial grievances. Now, as to this bill
being in conflict with the spirit of the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill. During the long contest, Grattan, Plunket,
and others, with the view of obtaining the consent of
Parliament and removing the jealousies of Protestants,
offered various securities—the noble earl has referred to
the securities offered in 1757 and 1793—but they did not
obtain the assent of Parliament. At the end of the long
Parliamentary contest, when it came to be a question be-
tween Earl Grey on the one part and Mr. Canning on the
other, Earl Grey said, "You ask for security ; show me
your danger, and I will show you my security." And Mr.
Canning said, " I am reproached and taunted with not go-
ing on proposing securities, as in former years; but I may
say that I will not be a security granter all my life, when
the proposed securities have been repeatedly rejected."
The principle acted upon was that there should be mutual
concessions. When Sir R. Peel came to propose his mea-
sure bf Catholic emancipation in 1829, he made a declara-
tion to the same effect. That is what you do at this mo-
ment depriving him of an equal position with the Pro-
testant. The noble earl holds forth from this house
that if you take away this security from the oath you
will let in a flood of danger to the Established Church.
But the noble earl forgets—and that is the point
of the whole complaint—that the power which you
tell the Catholic he is not to exercise you allow the Pro-
testant to exercise. Protestants may belong to Liberation
Societies—they may say wo think the Church endowment
altogether wrong—we think that it is an injury to religion
to have any such endowment, and therefore you ought not
to give to Protestants that very power of which you at-
tempt to deprive the Catholics. (Cheers.) And what is
the consequence of that ? Some of the counties in Ireland
thought themselves precluded from electing Roman Catho-
lics who would make it their business to take away the
revenues of the Church, and they elected Protestants who
use that very power—who declare in the House of Com-
mons that it is their object to eubvert the Established
Church and deprive it of all its revenues. That shows
the absurdity of the whole proceeding. (Hear,
hear.) Sir R. Peel goes on to say, "I believe there
is more real security in confidence than there is in dis-
trust and suspicion unaccompanied by effectual safe-
guards." And yet by these words of the oath you, accord-
ing to the noble earl and many others, deprive the Roman
Catholic of any power of exercising his judgment upon
any question relating to the revenues of the Church. I
now come to that part of the oath relating to the settle-
ment of property. Although in 1757 there were many who
thought the ancient settlement of property might be re-
stored, I doubt if there is any Catholic now who thinks
that the existing settlement is likely to be disturbed, or
that the ancient possessor of tho soil has any hope or
chance of its restoration to him. Tho rights of the Roman
Catholic, like those of the Protestant, rest on the general
security of the land, and rou require no oath from him on
that subject. The oath goes on to disclaim any intention
to subvert the Protestant government or religion. Will
you say that the Protestant is not to be debarred from
doing this, but that the Roman Catholic is ? If you say
that you at once say that there should be no equality be-
tween Protestant and Catholic ; and I frankly own that in
holding that language you offer an insult to the Roman
Catholic, and that you likewise do what is contrary to the
spirit of the present time. The spirit of the present time,
I will venture to say, is that t.ll members of Parliament
should have that equality to which Sirßobert Peel referred.
Every man who enters Parliament should have the power
of voting according to his own conscientiors judgment for
those laws which he thinks for the welfare of the king-
dom. The noble earl says he thinks this is a question
which regards the welfare of the kingdom. I quite agree
with him. I say it is for the welfare of the kingdom that I
every man who enters Parliament should have full liberty
to give his opinion, whether with regard to the Church
Establishment or any other part of the law ; and if
you attempt to bind any man not to exercise that
liberty, you debar him from that equal and just free-
dom which every member of either house ought to enjoy.
(Hear.) I say, then, that the oath is contrary to the inten-
tion and view with which the Emancipation Act was passed,
and is also contrary to the spirit of our times. It is no ar-
gument with me to say that in 1797 or in 1757 there was a
different spirit with regard to these things. My opinion is
that as the world gets older men get more regardful for
each other, and they have larger and more liberal views.
-What I find fault with the noble earl for is that while he
submits to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829
he will make no concession to the progress of religious
liberty, and refuses that to the Roman Catholics to which
they aro fairly and justly entitled. I now come to the question
of the ambiguity of the oath. The noble earl says there is
no ambiguity in it. Now, I confess it appears to me with
regard to the oath of allegiance there is no ambiguity in
it ; but as regards this oath there is considerable am-
biguity. It has been and is disputed among Roman Catholics
in what sense this oath ought to be taken. There are many
who think it precludes Roman Catholics from giving any
vote which may tend to injure the revenues of the Church
of England or Ireland. There are others who hold a totally
different opinion. There was one very eminent person—a
learned judge—who was quoted in the other house as having
given the true interpretation o/ the oath. That was Mr,
Justice Shee. There was another excellent and learned man
—Mr. Joseph Napier—who entertained quite a different
opinion. There are many conscientious Roman Catholics
who think the oath would be binding upon them in case
they possessed any civil office, but that in their legislative
capacity it is no more binding upon them than the Corona-
tion Oath was supposed to be binding on Geo. IV., and that
they are at liberty to give a vote for the entire subversion
of the Church of Ireland so far as its revenues are concerned,
I remember hearing the noble earl himself, in the other
house, read out the oath in the presence of the Roman Ca-
tholic members, and then leave it to them to reconcile that
oath with the vote which they were about to give with re-
spect to the revenues of the Church of Ireland. Now I must
say that that was a very painful thing. You have members
of the House of Commons who are as conscientious men as
any part of the assembly to which they belong, and yet you
say that the Protestants are at liberty to do what they
please with regard to tho revenues of the Established
Church, but that the Roman Catholics are guilty of perjury
itf;tley give a vote that may touch those revenues. Now
note aeepogbaittien owfibeigeueatlitthye.
Roman
tanis ncoatthaepolicseitionto
which unless
liis l
is
w
utheeereesbiassore
Supposepressing
thene Rae Catholicscesesmityforsodoin ergw. Bute n
he mowiesriet
ry
bound than the Protestants, what would be the conse-
quences ? There are a great many Roman Catholics who
think that the Protestant Church is a security for good order
and for the general observance of piety, and they woulclyote

willingly and most cheerfully against any attempt to sub-
vert the Establishment. There would be others who would
give a vote against the revenues of the Protestant Church.
But does anybody believe that that oath is a security to
the Protestant Church? (Hear, hear.) So long as Par-
liament believes that that Church is connected with the
religion of Ireland, with the maintenance of the Crown,
and with the general welfare of the kingdom, so long that
Church will be supported. But if these securities should
fail ; if men should cease to have an attachment to the
Protestant Church in Ireland ; if they should consider it
for the good of England and Ireland that the Church of
Ireland should no longer hold her revenues, do not think
that this flimsy security of two or three sentences in an
oath would be any real security. (Cheers.) Why not then
rely upon that which is the real security ? I believe that
it would be better to give to Protestant and to Catholic the
same religious liberty, and to rely upon the conviction of
Parliament as to what is useful to the country and what
is essential to religion and necessary to the maintenance of
property, and not upon words which were put in to entrap
Roman Catholics, which distress many of them from the
fear that they cannot give a vote in conformity with their
political opinions, and which induce others of greater
violence of opinion to give votes against the revenues of
the Establishment. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord says ho
is quite willing to give up that part of the oath which re-
lates to equivocal and mental reservation and to the murder
of sovereigns. But Ido not believe that any advantage
would accrue from taking away that portion of the oath.
You would thereby simply disturb the settlement made in
1829, and you would not by so doing give any real satis-
faction to the Roman Catholics, neither would you com-
plete that which is necessary for religious liberty. If the
object of the Roman Catholic is to endeavour to injure the
Protestant Establishment with the view to aid the Roman
Catholic Church, I think you may rely safely enough upon
the strong Protestant feeling of the country to defeat any
such attempts. (Cheers.) Looking, therefore, upon this
measure as a step in our progress towards religious liberty,
and a necessary step after so many years, and as one that
tends to give to my fellow-subjects that full liberty which
they ought to enjoy, I shall vote most heartily for the
second reading of the bill. (Cheers.)
The Earl of HARROWBY believed that this oath was
framed by Sir R. Peel with an express view to the safety
of the Irish Church, and that it could not be replacedwith-
out injury to that institution. For that reason he must
vote against the measure, however repugnant it might be
to his feelings, to anything which seemed like opposing
the fullest extension of religious freedom and equality to
the Roman Catholics.
Earl GREY said that those who contended that the re-
tention of the oath was essential to the maintenance of the
Established Church in England held a doctrine which he
conceived to be injurious to the interests of that Church.
The oath was never intended to prevent Roman Catholics
from voting on Church questions ; and if they were en-
titled, as the noble earl opposite (Earl Derby) admitted
they had been, to vote on the " Appropriation Clause," it
could not be argued that the oath bound them upon all
other Church matters. It appeared to him that every mem-
ber of the Legislature, in both houses of Parliament, was
under the higher and prior obligation to give his vote ac-
cording to his conscience and his judgment, as he believed
best for the country ; and that which was imposed by the
authority of previous Parliaments ought not to be allowed
to fetter him in the exercise of that judgment and discre-
tion. To argue otherwise was—to contend against the first
principle ofathe constitution. The danger to the Established
Church in Ireland was the discontent of the Irish people ;
but how could it be supposed that the danger was avoided
by preventing the expression of discontent which the
longer it smouldered the fiercer it grew by Roman Catholic
members ? (Hear, hear.) He adhered to the opinion that
the arrangement of Church property in Ireland was so
essentially unjust and contrary to the principles of natural
equity, that, if they were determined to maintain them
unaltered, sooner or later a great trouble would take place
on the subject. He admitted that it was not desirable to
precipitate that trouble ; but they could not shut their eyes
to the fact that in Ireland they had a Church, professing to
be a national Church, which was of no use to the great
majority of the people. It should not bo supposed that
he advocated the subversion of the Protestant Establish-
ment in Ireland ; but, at the same time, he believed that
if they looked into the question in a spirit of wisdom and
justice, and, above all, of Christian charity, it would not be
impossible to discover a mode of settling it which should
be just to all parties, and better for the Protestant religion
than the maintenance of the existing state of things. He
believed that it was this sense of injustice on the part of
the people of Ireland which had prevented the spread of
the Protestant religion in that country ; and until it was
removed, so long would the opposition to the Establishment
be continued. The noble earl (Derby) had contrasted the
past conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland with their
present disposition to attack the Church. Such a disposi-
tion might exist ; but if it did, it was the result of the errors
which had been committed by the Governments of England
in dealing with them. When the union of Ireland was
carried, it was the desire of Mr. Pitt that that measure
should be followed by the relief of the Roman Catholics
from their disabilities, and by a measure also making some
public provision for their clergy. That wise policy of Mr.
Pitt was defeated by those who saw in it danger to the
Established Church ; and what was the consequence ?
Was there a single man in the country of ordinary intelli-
gence or enlightenment who was not now convinced that
if Mr. Pitt's views bad been adopted at the end of the last
century, the Protestant Establishment in Ireland would
stand in a position of far less insecurity than it did at this
moment ? (Hear, hear.) Were they then, after such ex-
perience, to repeat the same mistake ? Would they, for the
sake of maintaining an imaginary security for the Church
a little longer—he believed that foul or five years was the
longest date which any man accustomed to read the signs
of the times would give to the maintenance of the Catholic
oath—would they, for the sake of maintaining that imagi-
nary security a little longer, add a new cause of irritation
and a new cause of hatred against the Establishment in the
minds of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects ? That was
the question which they had to decide; for, while he did not
disguise his feeling that the Irish Church Establishment
must undergo reduction and readjustment to the state of
the country, he at the same time should say that those who
wished to prevent its entire subversion would vote un-
wisely if they concurred in the rejection of the bill before
them. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ST. LEONARDS observed that the argument of
the noble earl was to the effect that this bill was intro-
duced to modify certain portions of the Roman Catholic
Relief Act of 1829. But what would the noble earl argue
if the bill before their loril,ships were ono for withdrawing
the privileges which that Act had conferred upon the
Roman Catholics of the empire ? It was urged that the
present form of oath was only intended to be temporary by
those who had framed the Act of 1829. He was one of
those who had something to do with the framing of that
measure, and he ventured to say that no Minister would
have dared to pass the Act without including those safe-
guards in it. At the time of the passing of the Act the
Roman Catholics would have accepted it s•rbject to the
condition that Roman Catholic members should not be
allowed to vote upon ecclesiastical questions. But Sir
Robert Peel objected to such a proposal, as it might give
rise to endless disputation as to what was an ecclesiastical
question. The Roman Catholic laity and clergy accepted
the Act in its present form, and they should not now seek
to escape from the compact they had freely agreed to at
the time. A few years ago, when the whole of England,
in defiance of numerous Acts of Parliament, had been par-
celled out into Roman Catholic dioceses by the Pope, the
blood of Englishmen was roused to the utmost pitch of in-
dignation. One of the immediate results of that excite-
ment was that an Act, very stringent in words, was
passed, restraining any Roman Catholic archbishop, bishop,
or dean from styling himself after the name of his diocese
or deanery ; but the Act, though free from all ambiguity
in words, was allowed to become a dead letter, and they
saw the ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church openly
violating it with impunity. Considering that the Roman
Catholic oath as now taken was the result of a compact in
which the Roman Catholics agreed, he was not prepared to
give up the security which it offered.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in announcing his
warm support of the bill, pointed out that every measure
intended for the relief of the Roman Catholics of Ireland
was opposed by noble lords opposite, who professed them-
selves the warmest friends of the country. It was so with
respect to the Emancipation Act ; it was so on the educa-
tion question ; and it was so in regard to the proposal to
reduce the number of bishops of the Irish• Church Estab-
lishment—a measure, by the way, which had turned out
most beneficially for the interests of that Establishment.
Now, had the noble lord who had just sat down shown that
the welfare of the Irish Church depended upon the main-
tenance of these words of the oath which the bill proposed
to expunge ? He rejoiced to say that he had totally failed
to do so: For although there was no denying that an in-
stitution like the Irish Church was full of anomalies, yet,
having had abundant opportunity of witnessing the bene-
ficial working of an Established Church as compared with
the working of a church supported upon the voluntary
principle, he must say he regarded the principle of estab-
lishing religion in connection with the State with the
utmost favour. The great misfortune for Ireland and for
the Established Church was that the proposal of Mr. Pitt
had not been carried into effect in the year 1826, when
there was an opportunity of doing so, and that the main-
tenance of the Roman Catholic religion was not adopted
by the State. He regarded the attempt to fetter Roman
Catholic members of Parliament as both impolitic and ab-
surd, and he was well aware that the oath in its present
shape was most offensive to many Roman Catholics. In
his opinion there ought to be only one simple form of oath
applicable to every citizen in this free community, and that
ought to be framed without any reference to a man's reli-
gious belief.
Lord CHELMSFORD said it was to be lamented that
a question of the kind should have been agitated on the
eve of a general election ; and, at any rate, if it was to be
brought forward, it ought to have been brought forward
upon the avowed responsibility of the Government. It
might be said the Government had no control over the
action of independent members of Parliament ; but, in
this instance, it ought to be remembered the proposal ema-
nated from one who was a warm supporter of the Govern-
ment, and who, no doubt, would kayo boon yery glad to

have committed this matter to their care. He could not
agree with his noble friend (Lord Devon) that there was
very little practical difference between the' oath embodied
in this bill and that of the Act of 1858. The Act of 1.858

embodied a recognition of the Royal supremacy, whereas
this oath did not. Now he would strongly object to any

oath which enabled Protestants, in common with Roman

Catholics, to ignore the Royal supremacy. However, the
question before them was, whether they were prepared to
say that the most valuable and essential part of the oath of
1829 should be aboliShed. He did not mean to strain the

Act of 1829 beyond its natural range, and to say that every
provision of it was unalterable ; still there were parts of it
which were vital and of permanent obligation. He would
have consented to removing that portion of the oath which,
having been repealed as regarded the Protestants, might
fairly be considered by Roman Catholics as invidious and
insulting; but with regard to the other part of the oath—
.

that which was the condition upon which Rothan Catholics
were admitted to Parliament—he could not consent to its
abolition. ,Their lordships would observe that with re-

spect to that portion a Roman Catholic did not complain
that it was offensive, but that it was a restraint upon his

conscience, and therefore he desired it to be removed. The
answer to that was, that such restraint was precisely what
was intended in 1829, and what the Roman Catholics had

agreed to accept. It was said that there were scrupulous
Roman Catholics who abstained from interfering in any

questions connected with the Established Church, on the
ground that they were restrained by the oath which they
had taken ; but it was said, too, that the oath was am-
biguous, and that the Roman Catholics hardly knew
how they were to act on particular occasions. Some felt
that the oath was binding, and others that it was not.
Unscrupulous persons would not be bound by any oath ;

and as to ambiguity, every man must construe the
oath according to his own conscience, and, if he enter-
tained the slightest doubt about acting, adopt the safe rule
of practical morality, and refrain from acting. There was
no doubt, from this feeling existing, that the oath did not
act as a restraint, and he contended that the present was
no time to remove any securities, because there was a dis-
position on the part of the Irish Roman Catholics to aim a
deadly blow at the Establishment in that country, and that
the English Catholics would necessarily be exposed to ex-
ternal influence to induce them to adopt the aggressive
policy which the noble lord proved, by a sermon by the
present Archbishop Manning, to be the avowed object of
the Roman Catholic Church. For these reasons he would
not consent to abandon what he firmly believed to be a
security to the Established Church.
Lord LYVEDEN looked upon what had been said
against the bill as merely uttered for election purposes, and
contended that the bill could not have been in better hands
than those of the noble earl who had introduced it. The
opinion of the country, so far as could be ascertained, was
decidedly in favour of the bill. He denied that the settle-
ment of 1829 was the only question before the house. An-
other question was, whether a bill which had been sent up
by large majorities of the House of Commons should, on
the ground of the settlement, be rejected. The Catholics
stated that the oath was vague, indefinite, ambiguous, and
in many respects offensive to them. The ground had been
cleared up to a great extent by the admissions made by
several noble lords that night that a great portion of the
bill was offensive. He utterly denied there was any com-
pact made in 1829 which should preclude the House of
Commons from sending up such a bill as that before their
lordships. It was admitted that in two respects the bill
ought to be altered, but he thought that it ought to be
altered in many others. • Promissory oaths were always
objectionable, and the more so when they were as vague
as the present. He denied that the Church was in danger,
and maintained, on the contrary, that it would be perfectly
safe even though assailed by Roman Catholics and Dis-
senters. He thought it would be well if the noble earl
(Earl Derby) had allowed the bill to go into committee,
and contended that they were as much entitled to alter
the oath as to do any other legislative act within the pro-
vince of Parliament. He hoped that they would show to
their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects that they had not
forgotten the principles which dictated the Emancipation
Act, and that they would endorse the statement of Sir R.
Peel that the Roman Catholics, since 1829, had shown by
their conduct that they were influenced by no other than
conscientious motives in their votes in Parliament.
(Hear, hoar.)
The Marquis of WESTMEATH, who addressed the
house amid loud cries of " Question," observed that the
oath which Roman Catholic bishops took on their conse-
cration contained passages similar to those which the Ro-
man Catholics of these countries, in their squeamishness,
now objected to, and that the bill came from the other
house only by a majority of 19.
Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE said that if he
followed his inclinations ho would not vote at all ; but that,
considering the time and circumstances under which the
bill was introduced, ho should oppose the second reading.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading—Contents
Non-contents
Majority—Non-contents —2l.
The bill was therefore rejected.
The following bills were read a second time :—Carriers'
Act Amendment Bill; Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amend-
ment Bill ; Rochdale Vicarage Bill ; Naval Discipline Act
Amendment Bill; and the Sugar Duties and Drawbacks
Bill.

read the third time and passed, after a short discussion, in
which Colonel Sykes, Mr. J. White, Mr. Adderley, and
Mr. Cardwell took part.
On the order for going into committee upon the Turn-
pike Acts Continuance Bill,
Lord HENLEY complained of the slow progress made
towards the total abolition of turnpikes, recommended by
the committee of last year.
The house went into committee upon this bill, the
clauses of which were agreed to.
The Report of the Inland Revenue Bill was agreed to,
with an amendment, and the bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Report of the County Court Equitable Jurisdiction
Bill was likewise agreed to, with sundry amendments.
the Indemnity Bill and the Compound Warehousing
Bill were read the third time and passed. -
The Colonial Docks Loan Bill passed the Committee,
with amendments.
The Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) Bill was
read the third time and passed.

Several Bills were read the second time.
Tho Railway Debentures, &c., Registry Bill was with-

drawn.
The Lords' amendments of certain bills were considered
The House adjourned at a quarter-past eight o'clock.

Naval and Military Intelligence.

Her Majesty's newly-constructed steam ram cor-
vette Pallas, attended by the dockyard tug Monkey;
Mr. Smithers, master, returned to Woolwich yester-
day morning in command of Capt. Luke, Roya
Naval Steam Reserve at that station, after her pre-

liminary trip to the Maplin Sands, and was again
docked for the readjustment of her screw.
The iron paddle vessel Antelope, recently on ser-
vice on the West Coast of Africa, which has been
detained at Sheerness for official purposes, was yes-

terday inspected at Woolwich by Commodore Dun-
lop, C. 8., Superintendent of the dockyard, After
unshipping her guns and war stores she will be
stripped and paid out of commission. In conse-
quence of the untimely death of her commander,
Lieut. Constantine 0. D. Allingham, the Antelope
came home in command of Second-Master Alfred
Thomas. She was commissioned at Woolwich on

the sth of August, 1861, and has been successful in
capturing three slavers, by which the ship's compony

will be entitled to a good amount of prize money.
The Mariner, 12, and the Childers, 12, attached
to the sailing reserve in Chatham harbour, have
been purchased from the Lords of the Admiralty by
Capt. H. F. M'liillop, the Mariner being in.
tended for a powder magazine. Although these,
and the other ships composing the sailing reserve,
are quite out of date as ships of war, they are in
sound condition ; and, as the moorings they occupy
in the harbour are required for other vessels, the
Admiralty would act wisely in selling them out of
the service with as little delay as possible. An order

has been received for the sale of the gun-vesse

Plover, 5, 800 horse-power, recently paid off at
Chatham on her return from the coast of Africa.

The armour-plates for the reconnoitring tower
now being constructed at Chatham, for the iron
frigate Bellerophon, will be manufactured by Messrs.
Cammell and Co., of the Cyclops Iron and Steel
Works, Sheffield, whose tender at £35 per ton has
been accepted by the Admiralty. The fore and aft
plates of the tower will be eight inches in thickness,
and the port and starboard plates six inches thick.
The difficulty in which the Turret-ship Committee
found themselves placed, as noticed in the " Naval
Intelligence" of The Sun of Saturday, by the refusal
of Capt. Coles to entertain any consideration of a
summary of objections raised by the Committee on
evidence given, but which evidence Capt. Coles was
not allowed to read, has been put an end to by the
Admiralty directing the Committee to close their
report and forward it to Whitehall immediately.
Their lordships have further intimated that, after
having perused the evidence and the report of the
Committee, they will communicate directly with
Capt. Coles.
Port-Admiral Sir Chas. Fremantle, K.C.8., went
on Sunday into Plymouth Sound, and inspected the
iron-cased screw steamship Caledonia, 31, flag of
Rear-Admiral Hastings R. Yelverton, second in
command in the Mediterranean.
The transport Tyburnia, 961 tons, Capt. Fredk.
Coote, belonging to Messrs. Somes, Brothers, Black-
wall, arrived in Plymouth Sound on Saturday even-
ing. She left Madras on the 9th of March with the
headquarters of the 66th Regiment, under command
of Lieut.-Col. Tom Benson, consisting of 22 ser-
geants, 7 drummers, 242 rank and file, 15 women
and 21 children, and 3 privates of the 60th Rifles.
The officers of the 66th are Capts. J. Galbraith and
C. W. Oliver, Lieuts. H. K. F. Merewether and
W. L. Battle, Ensigns H. W. Baker and E. T. John-
ston, Lieuts. and Adjt. T. Mahony and Surgeon L.
W. S. Murray, M.D., with Mrs. Mahony and family,
and Mrs. Coote. The Tyburnia rounded the Cape
of Good Hope on the 25th of April, left St. Helena
on the 7th May, crossed the Equator on the 16th
May, and passed the Western Islands on the 4th
June, since which strong north-easterly winds have
been experienced, and have detained her threeweeks.
On the Bth of June she spoke the Hanoverian
schooner Almuth Ukeria, 188 (rays from Rio Grande
for Falmouth ; on the 17th, the ship Maxwell, from
Callao for Cork ; and June 22d, the ship Anto-
netti, from Valparaiso for Cowes. The troops will
probably be quartered in Plymouth citadel.
The invalided troops brought to England from
Calcutta in the sailing Indiaman Roslin Castle
were transferred from that ship at Spithead yester-
day by a Government steamer to the Royal Vic-
toria Military Hospital at Nutley, after which the
Roslin Castle sailed for London. The officers and
troops comprised :—Capt. W. St. John, and Mrs.
St. John, 94th Foot ; Lieut. Spottiswoode, 21st
Hussars ; Lieut. Heathcote, 98th Foot ; Lieut.
Moore, 42d Foote; Assist.-Surg. Maunsell, 48th
Foot ; 194 invalids (various regiments), 13 women,
and 25 children. Six deaths occurred on the voy-
age. Capt. and Mrs. St. John proceeded on from
Spithead to the Thames in the ship, on account of
the illness of Mrs. St. John.
The banquet announced to be given by the officers
of the Royal Artillery to Lieut.-Gen. Sir Hugh
Rose, G.C.8., K. 5.1., recently in command of the
forces in India, came off yesterday evening at Wool-
wich. Sir Hugh arrived in the garrison from Lon-
don in the morning, attended by his aide-de-camp,
Capt. Wilkins, and passed the early portion of the
day, accompanied by Lieut. Reilly, C. 8., Royal
Horse Artillery, in inspecting the Arsenal. Covers
were laid for 130 persons. Among those present
were Lieut.-Gen. Sir Robert Napier, Lieut.-Gen.
Sir Richard Dacres, Major-Gen. T. Gordon Hig-
gins, Major-Gen. Sandham, and other officers who
have been rewarded for meritorious and distin-
guished services in the field. Major-Gen. E. C.
Warde, C. 8., commanding the garrison, presided.
The following order has been issued at Wool-
wich :—" Commandant's Office, Woolwich, June
26.—A1l practice will be suspended at the practice
range, Plumstead-marshes, from the 28th inst. to
the 15th of July inclusive, to enable the contractors
to cut and carry the grass crop, agreeably to the
conditions of their tenders."
The appointment of director of the Royal Engineer
establishment, Chatham, has become vacant by the

resignation of Col. H. D. Harness, C.. 8., who will
be succeeded by Col. J. L. A. Simmons, C. 8., at pre-
sent attached to the staff at Aldershott. The duties
attached to the appointment of director are now
being performed by Lieut.-Col. T. B. Collison.
The following appointments were made yesterday
at the Admiralty :—Commander W. Chimmo, to the
Gannet, commissioned; C. W. Ross, master, to the
Sphinx ; Lieut. Alex. R. Kerr and Lieut. Francis
Hayter, to the Victoria and Albert; Lieut. Lynedoch
N. Moncrieff, as additional to the Princess Royal ;
Lieut. J. A.Da,shwood, as additional to the Curacoa ;
P. H. Rickman, midshipman, to the Achilles ; Henry
Rickard, assist.-surg., to the Wellesley, for Chatham
yard ; and J. Ashton, assist. paymaster, to the
Sphinx.

EADTERTISEMENT.I Holloway's Ointment. Painless
Cures.—Sores, wounds, ulcerations, and other diseases
affecting the skin, are amenable by this cooling and healing
unguent. It has called forth the loudest praise from per-
sons who had suffered for years from bad legs, abscesses,
and chronic ulcers, after every hope of cure had passed
away. None but those who have experienced the cooling
effects of this ointment can form an idea of the comfort it
bestows by restraining inflammation and allaying pain.
Whenever this ointment has been once used it has estab-
lished its own worth, and has again been eagerly sought
for as the easiest and safest remedy for all ulcerous com-
plaints. In neuralgia, rheumatism, and gout, the same ap-
plicatio, properly used, giTQN WQlldElflll