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

ing the clause which bound every member of Parliament
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

discussion in the Lower House, an said that the object

of the bill was to "unmuzzle the senators." But to " un-

muzzle" them for what? Clearly that they might do thevery
thing which it was desired to prevent them. Unmuzzle 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 ¶he necessity of

retaining it. He believed that the removal of these 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 should 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. -Ile would if he could have relieved the
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 ;but the 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 verygrave 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 the Roman 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 ono 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 It. Peel came to propose his mea-
sure of 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 tako 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.rro-
testant to exercise. Protestants may belong to Liberation
Societies—they may say we 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 subvert 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 the soil has any hope or
chance of its restoration to him. The rights of the Roman
Catholic, like those of the Protestant, rest on the general
security of the land, and you 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 all 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 conscientious 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
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.
(Hoar.) 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 are 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 of 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 aro at liberty to do what they
please with regard to the revenues of the Established
Church, but that the Roman Catholics are guilty of perjury
itf_.:!,slifisy give a vote that may touch those revenues. Now
snwoseto
some
nep:phsritet
si (t):: ogs
subject
equality.necessity
ejceeee,stthety
for T
Romans
oh a tdiosi notncga. t
Catholics
"oulpositionticshouunless
lies tsiowhst
itherceh
necessary ? Suppose the Roman Catholics were no more
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 would vote