The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS-THIS DAT.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
THE HON. MR. BETHELL.

Mr. FERRAND gave notice that to-morrow he would
ask the Attorney-General by whose authority the document
was prepared from which he read his reply with regard to
Mr. Welch on Monday evening ; also, whether he would
lay on the table the letter of Mr. Welch, and the Hon.
R. Bethell confirming the same.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.

Mr. MONSELL moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was to relieve Roman Catholics from
certain oaths which they consider obnoxious. The hon.
member did not make any remarks on the subject.
Mr. LEFROY moved as an anendment that the bill be
read a second time that day six months. He contended
that the oaths imposed on a member of the House of Com-
mons was a part of the arrangement upon which Catholic
Emancipation was conceded, and therefore he was of
opinion that it could not now be objected to on conscien-
tious grounds. He also objected to bringing forward the
measure at the present time, because it was ill-advised, and
there appeared to be a very extensive movement going on
amongst certain parties for the dismemberment of the
Established Church in Ireland, and that if the change was
required it ought to be brought forward by the Govern-
ment.

Mr. WHALLEY entirely concurred in the observations
of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and, there-
fore, he should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE supported the bill, in order that
certain oaths which still impair the great and important,
but tardy, act of justice done to the Roman Catholics by
the passing of the Emancipation Act, might be done away
with. (Hear, hear.) The oath he considered was
ambiguous and immoral, and he hoped the time had come
when one portion of the members of that house would be
anxious to relieve their brother members from that
brand of suspicion, that banshee of superstition which
was forced upon them by the compulsory administration of
the oath. He did not think it generous on the part of the
majority of that house to impose this oath on the mino-
rity, because there was no good actually in doing so, and
it was only that the number of persons forced to take it

were comparatively small that had led to its remaining in
force up to the present day. He could not see the
slightest usefulness in the proceedings, he entirely ob-
jected to these flimsy fair weather securities that
vanished when they were wanted, and said he could
only compare them to the frowning fortress on the stage,
which, on close inspection, we at once see to be quite use-
less as far as any practical purpose was concerned. (Hear,
hear.) It had been said that the Roman Catholic members
of that house had nothing to complain of, but toleration
was not enough. He was of opinion that every member of
that house ought to hold his seat on equal terms. (Hear,
hear.) He hoped the measure would meet with the ap-
proval of the majority of that house, and then they would
show that they were not disinclined to listen to the call of
generosity and the commands of morality. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE opposed the bill, as he considered
the proposal 'to abolish the oath dangerous and rash. The
oath had been taken without the slightest objection for a
great number of years, and he could not understand the
reason that had induced the hon. member to bring the
matter forward, because ho had never heard any very seri-
ous objection to the oath it was now proposed to abrogate.
He considered it was absolutely necessary to preserve the
Church to retain the oath it was now sought to abolish,
and that being his opinion, he should give his vote in
opposition to the bill.
Sir G. GREY said the hon. member had appealed to
him to state the course the Government proposed to
take with respect to this bill, but ho thought that
such an appeal was unnecessary, because for the last ten
years the Government had been endeavouring to abolish
those oaths, and therefore there ought to be no occasion
to ask the opinion of the Government with respect to the
principles of the bill now under discussion. He denied
that any compact was entered into at the passing of the
Emancipation Act, and it was unjust and ungenerous to
the memories of the late Duke of Wellington and Sir R.
Peel to make such a statement. He felt the bill ,had jus-
_ _

tico and right on its side, and therefore he should vote for

its second reading, especially as its object was only to
assimilate the oath taken by Roman Catholics with
that taken by Protestant Episcopalians and members
of the Jewish persuasion. He could not believe

there was the slightest reason for retaining the objection-
able oath, because he felt that the loyalty of her Majesty's
Roman Catholic subjects might be as firmly relied upon as
their Protestant brethren. For the sake of argument,
suppose they were not, then he was firmly of opinion that
the law of the land would be found quite equal to the calls
that would be made upon it. (Hear, hear.) Ho could not
believe that there was a single Roman Catholic gentleman

in that house who believed that he was absolved from alle-
giance to her Majesty, or that he would be justified in
murdering a prince or potentate excommunicated by the
Pope. (Hear, hear.) He objected to the oath on the
ground of its injustice, because he did call it an injustice
and a wrong to call upon Roman Catholics to take an oath
which reflected upon the Church to which he belonged, or
the faith he entertained. Never was itif or a moment seri-
ously thought that the passing of this bill would endanger
or disturb the Act of Settlement. Why, such a supposi-
tion he looked upon as perfectly absurd. He did not see
that the oath provided any great security for the preserva-
tion of the Sovereign and our institutions, and he was of
opinion that the general feeling in the country would
be in favour of Parliament giving its sanction to the
bfll. (Hear, hear.) He did not see in this oath
any great security for the Protestant religion such as had
been stated by the objectors to the measure. He looked ,
forward to the time when one common oath should be
framed, which could be taken by every member of the house,
and thus all sent to the Leglislature would take their seats
quite on an equality. (Hear, hear.) He should therefore

give the bill his support.
Mr. WALPOLE thought the wisest course would be to
adhere to the act of 1829, because the effect of not doing so
would be to raise up religious feuds, than which nothing
was less desirable. Supposing the house thought there
ought to be an amendment of the oath, then he frankly
admitted that there were parts of the oath it was not ad-
visable to retain, but the subject ought to be dealt with by
the Government. He thought it would be wise to put all
upon one footing, and that one oath should be taken byall
entering that house, but that was not the object sought by
the bill. The measure would do nothing but disturb the
settlement come to in 1829, and therefore he should give
his vote against the second reading.
Lord H. LENNOX thought there ought to be but one
oath for members of that house, and for that reason he
should cordially support the motion for proceeding with
the measure.

Mr. T. KENNEDY approved of the bill, and said he
considered the house as ;.competent to deal with the sub-
ject now as it was 30 years ago, and he did hope that the
liberal and generous feeling that at present existed between
Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland would not be
disturbed by the rejection of the bill.

Mr. COLLINS did not think the present House of Com-
mons was bound to the acts of their fathers 35 years ago.
(Hear.) He thought it was quite true that that which had
generally been admitted to be an injustice should be at

once removed. Ile was in favour of ono oath being
framed for the general use by all members of that house.
The great danger to the Church of England did not,
in his opinion, proceed from the Roman Catholics, but it

came from those who were hostile to all connection between

Church and State, and from those free-thinkers who were

I opposed to all subscriptions to the articles of the clergy
(Hear.) He hoped the house would give its assent to the-
principle of the bill by voting for its second reading.
The house then divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading l9O
Against it
Majority -56
The bill was accordingly read a second time and ordered
to be committed on Friday.
Mr. NEWDEGATE gave notice that on that day he
should move that the bill be committed that day six
months.
Wit SMOKE NUISANCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.

DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) BILL.I
The house went into committee on this bill, but the dis-
cussion was continued up to a quarter to six, when the
debate closed, according to the standing orders.

NEW FIRE BRIGADE.
Mr. BARING obtained leave to bring in a bill for the
establishment of a fire brigade within the metropolis.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
tho house adjourned.