The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-31 00:00:00

BILL.

Sir C. FERGUSON moved that the filled-up bill de-
posited in the Private Bill-office, as proposed to be amended,
and submitted to the committee on group 22 of railway
bills, be referred to the examiners of petitions for private
bills, with instruction to examine and report whether the
standing orders of the house have been complied with in
relation to the bill so amended and proposed to be sub-
mitted to the committee ; and that all petitions complain-
ing of non-compliance with the standing orders, in rela-
tion to the said amended bill, be referred to the examiners,
with instructions to hear parties and their agents and wit-
nesses thereupon.

Mr. DODSON opposed the motion, which, after a short
discussion, was withdrawn.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS BILL.—(THE
ADJOURNED DEBATE.)
On the motion for the house going into committee on this
bill,

Mr. NEWDEGATE moved, as an amendment, that the
house go into committee that day six months. He was of
opinion that the bill now under discussion was the first
attempt that had been made to disturb the compact entered
into in the year 1829. There had been two committees, it
was true, to consider the oaths taken by the members of
the house, yet, although all the other oaths had been con-
sidered, the Roman Catholic oath had never been touched.
(Hear, hear.) There had been, therefore, no inquiry into
the substance of the oath, or the manner in which it was
now proposed to alter it. The Government had asked the
house to go into committee on this bill, and yet there was
not on the notice paper one single word to lead the house
to imagine the alterations proposed. Tho Home Secretary
had stated that he was not prepared to go the whole length
proposed by the bill, and that being the case, he thought
he might have had the grace and favour to announce the
exact distance he was prepared to go. As that course had
not been adopted, he felt it his duty to do all he possibly
could to prevent the bill becoming the law of the land. He
was a staunch Protestant by conviction, and as such he
wished to resist that which ho considered schismatic,
heretical, and corrupt, and he took the course
be did because there was a feeling and an earnest
desire on the part of Roman Catholics in that country to
"subdue an Imperial people," as was said by Dr. Manning,
the successor of Cardinal Wiseman, to the domination of
the Church of Rome, The house had removed nearly every
obstacle in the way of religious freedom, but he thought it
too much to ask the house to set aside one which only
went the length of making it compulsory that the consti-
tution of the country should be respected. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. TREHEARNE seconded the motion.
Mr. GREGORY said he could not understand. the de-
termined opposition which was given to the present bill,
which, he contended, was one merely of common decency
to the Roman Catholics. He could not believe that it was
thought that there was any fear of her most gracious Ma-
jesty being deposed and substituted by the Pope. The
Roman Catholics were not the great and terrible destroyers
they had been represented. Who, he would ask, brought
the head of Mary, Queen of Scots, to the block? The
Protestants. Who did as much for Charles I. ? The Puri-
tans of England ? Who deposed James L ? The Protestants.
He altogether denied that the Roman Catholics were so
completely under the foot of the Vatican as had been repre-
sented, because some of the most important services ever
rendered to the Sovereign of this country had been per-
formed by persons holding that belief. When the great
Spanish Armada set sail it carried aloft, and in their midst,
a banner blest by the Pope. Now, he would ask, who was
the person conspicuous in the defeat of that great fleet ?
Why, Lord Howard of Effingham, a Roman Catholic ; and,
again, who at that particular time afforded the
most important assistance a subject could give
a sovereign ? Why, Lord Montague, a Roman Catholic.
(Hear, hear.) A tissue of obstacles had been
related to the house with a view of impeding the mea-
sure, but he believed the result would be that that which was
but an act of justice would receive the sanction and sup-
port of the majority of that house. _

Sir J. PAKINGTON said the object of the bill was vir-
tually to repeal one of the arrangements entered into with
the Roman Catholics in 1829, and the bringing it forward
at that particular time he regarded with imminent danger,
because it might tend to revive that angry feeling between
Roman Catholics and Protestants which he so greatly de-
precated. If the bill was really required than it ought to
have been introduced by the Government of the country,
and not by a private member of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Whether the measure was right or wrong, of one thing
there was no doubt, viz., that it sought to effect a very
important change in the constitution of the country—
(hear, hear)--and a measure doing that, in his opinion,
ought to have been brought forward by the Executive'
y
Government, and that Government ought not to be satisfied
with merely giving their support andassistance to aprivate
member. The late Sir Robert Peel regarded the Roman
Catholic oath as part of the settlement entered into in 1829,
and to the latest hour of his life he regarded it as a final
compact and arrangement that ought not to be legally
altered. The present was not the moment to adopt in all
its entirety the motion of his hon. friend. He would, how-
ever, divide the oath into four parts, and he would briefly
tell the hon. gentleman how far he would go with him.
In the first place, he had no objection to
.expunge the part
of the oath which stated that excommunicated sovereigns
might be deposed or murdered by their subjects. It
was an affront and offence to common sense,
and therefore he for one could not defend it. With
respect to the jurisdiction of the Pope, or other potentate
in that country, he had no wish that that should be re-
tained. The following portion which set forth that the
person taking the oath did so without evasion, equivoca-
tion, or mental reservation. He also would gladly see
it abolished, because it was an insult to every man of

honour, and a man without honour no oath could bind.
(Hear, hear.) But the last portion of the oath, that which
referred to the preservation of the settlement of property,
as by law established, the preservation of the Church, as
by law established, and the Protestant religion, that he
felt was desirable and important to retain. He would
give his assent, thus far, to the honourable gentleman,
and it would be for him to say whether he would accept
the alteration he proposed or not.
Mr. HORSMAN said he could only regard the Roman
Catholic oath as a mark of distinction between two mem-
bers of that house, and such a distinction, he contended,
ought not to exist. Why such a distinction should be made
he could not understand, because if the Roman Catholics
were regarded as enemies of the Established Church, were
not the English Dissenters in the same position ?
(Hear, hear.) He looked upon the oath as a rem-
nant of a dark age, and the sooner it was got
rid of the better, and if he went into committee on this bill
he should do so with the earnest intention of getting a re-
vision of all the oaths now in use. (Hear, hear.) He
thought it was time when one oath as brief and simple as
possible should be taken by all members in common, and as
far as he was concerned, he would like to see the oath of
allegiance the only one taken at the table. He thought
with the hon. baronet the member for Droitwich that the
matter ought to have been brought forward by the Govern-
ment, and he hoped that when the bill came from commit-
tee it would pass through its other stages under the au-
spices of her Majesty's Government.

Sir H. CAIRNS was of opinion that the present was not
the proper time to discuss the terms of the Roman Catholic
oath, although he was free to confess that the earlier terms
of the oath with respect to excommunicated sovereigns and
the jurisdiction of the Pope were useless. With respect to
that portion of the oath relating to the disturbing or weak-
ening the Protestant religion or Protestant Government of
England, no one had yet ventured to say that the words

were oppressive in form. He believed that it was the wish
of members of the Roman Catholic faith to be free, in
order that they might subvert the Church of England, as
by law established, if they could ; and, if for no other
purpose, he considered it wise and prudent to retain the
latter portion of the oath as a safeguard against any future
attacks that might be made on the Church of England.
Without the hon. member for Limerick gave an answer
that he would accept the proposition of the right hon.
member for Droitwich, he should cheerfully support the
motion of the hon.member for North Warwickshire.

Lord E. HOWARD thought the oath but a snare to con-
science, and that the house would do well to remove it
from their books, especially as it was repugnant to the feel-
ings of nearly all of the British gentlemen called upon to
take it.

Mr. MONSELL said he could not accept the pro-
posal of the hon. member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pak-
ington).

Sir P. BURRELL attempted for some time to address
the house, but owing to the loud calls for a division, he
resumed his seat.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For going into committee 193
Against it
Majority —67
The house then went committee, pro forma, and the
chairman immediately reported progress.
Mr. WHITESIDE asked the right hon. baronet the
Home Secretary whether he would adopt the suggestion of
the hon. member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman), and take
charge of the bill.
Mr. HORSMAN said the right hon. gentleman could not
be expected to answer the question off hand.
Sir G. GREY said he was not going to give an answer
at that moment.
The debate was then adjourned, Mr. MoNsxLL intimat-
ing that he would inform the house in the evening when
he proposed to proceed with the committal of the bill.
The sitting of the house was then suspended.
The house resumed at six o'clock.
THE MAIL SERVICE BET WEEN DUBLIN AND