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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAs'r EVENING.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at the usual hour.

TRACTARIAN PREACHERS.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH introduced a bill to
amend the law relating to the performance of Divine wor-
ship in the Church of England. He said he would explain
its provisions on the second reading.
DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord REDESDALE said he thought they could get all
the business done by the 13th Jlty.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that Government
had not made any arrangements that would necessitate
dissolution before that date.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.
The Earl of DEVON, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said he 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 LParliament, which he ridiculed, he said
there was no reason to doubt tho 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 from 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 there was 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, andof 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 lreland, 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 had on that ground exposed himself to theanimadversion
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 person; 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 be
taken by Roman Catholics as distinguished from Protes-
ttnts. 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 great 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 It ish parliamentary franchise. He came
next to a petition presented to the Imperial Parlitment 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
by 30Romeat 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. Ile (Lord Derby) drew a broad distinction
between the different portions of the oath. He had no objec-
tion to release the Roman Catholics from declaring 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. Ho quite agreed that this part of the oath
was absurd, and if it was offensive to the Catholics he
was quite willing that it should be swept away. He might
be asked why, if such were his views, he did not allow
the bill to go into committee and then move an amend-
ment ? But the very amendment which he had sketched
out had been rejected in the House of Commons ; and he
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 he 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
estates would one day or other be restored to their ancient
possessors. 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 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
1-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 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 toprevent 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 the 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 electioa. He 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 very gravequestion, 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 staked 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 bo-
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 of Catholic emancipation in 1829, he made a declara-

tion to tho 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 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, `there
is 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 ,tho 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 Sir Robert 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.
(Hear.) I say, then, that the oath is contrary to the inten-
tion mid 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 man get snore 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 cy the oath. That was Mr.
Justice Shoe. 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 tho 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 the revenues of the Established
Church, but that the Roman Catholics are guilty of perjury
if.they give a vote that may touch those revenues. Now
this is not a position of equality. That is not a position to
which we ought to subject the Roman Catholics unless
there is some pressing necessity for so doing. But how is it
necessary? Suppose the Raman 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