The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.-Jn spite of a vigorous resistance by Mr.
Whiteside and a somewhat hesitating opposition by
Mr. Walpole, the Roman Catholic Oaths Bill was
read a second time yesterday by a decisive majority,
and in spite of the continued opposition threatened
by Mr. Newdegate, we may hope that so reasonable
and simple a measure will be allowed to become law.
It is, however, somewhat surprising to what an
extent the old familiar warnings of danger to the
Church still hold a place in the House of Commons.
We expect such language, of course, from Mr.
Whalley ; but it is astonishing that it can be used
in earnest by such a speaker as Mr. Whiteside. In
a cartel which Addison proposed in 1715 for the
management of arguments among the ladies he pro-
poses " That no coquette, notwithstanding she can
do it with a good air, shall be allowed to sigh for the
danger of the Church, or to shiver at the apprehen-
sions of fanaticism." A parallel restriction might
usefully be laid upon Protestant rhetoricians. At
this time of day, 300 years after the Reformation
and 150 years after the Act of Settlement, if our
Protestant Church and the Protestant dynasty, and
the settlement of property connected with them,
have not taken sufficient root in the country to be
safe from the attacks of an insignificant minority of
Roman Catholics, they will certainly not be pro-
tected by the few lingering remains of the old fences
which protected their early growth. More particu-
larly if the Church and the Protestant Establish-
ment have survived the momentous change of
Catholic Emcipation, they may look with supreme
indifference upon a slight alteration in the terms, if
we should not rather say in the language, of that
great measure. It should be distinctly remembered,
however, that the present proposal does not arise
from a gratuitous wish to interfere with what Mr.
Whiteside is pleased to call " the compact" of
1829. The bill simply proposes to do in the
case of oaths administered to Roman Catholics
what has been already done in the case of oaths
administered to all other members. By the Act of
1858 the then existing Oaths of Allegiance, Supre-
macy, and Abjuration were replaced by one simple
oath, and Mr. Monsell merely proposes that the
oath of Roman Catholics shall be in like manner
simplified, and shall be made as nearly as possible
the same as the general oath. _ Nor should it be

forgotten that the of 1858 was introduced
in direct connection with " the relief of her Ma-

jesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion."
The Roman Catholics may fairly think it a hardship
if, while oaths are simplified and altered for the
relief of every other religious community, they,
and they alone, should be burdened with the offen-
sive declarations imposed by an obsolete state of
public feeling. It is urged, in reply to this repre-
sentation, that there are peculiar tenets in the
Roman Catholic religion which place, those who
profess them in 'a different position from all other
communities. We are reminded by Mr. Whiteside
that the Pope expressly claims a jurisdiction in-
compatible with the laws and liberties of this
country, and that he is so far from being disposed
to waive it that he has just re-asserted it in an
Encyclical Letter, and is even now giving a prac-
tical illustration of his assumption by appointing
a new Archbishop of Westminster. The argument,
however, is quite irrelevant to the issue. Thb point
at issue is whether this oath is necessary, and this
depends not at all upon the question of what may
be the principles of the Papacy. We do not frame
oaths against every form of religion or of politics
which involve principles antagonistic to our Con-
stitution. The question is whether the objec-
tionable principles are at all likely to spread to a
dangerous extent in this country, and whether
we can check them by the form of an Oath. The
first portion of the question will be answered at
once in the negative by nearly everybody except
Mr. Whalley and the Potestant Alliance. What-
ever clanger threatens the Church and Constitution
of this country, it certainly does not spring from
the pretensions of the Church of Rome. At the
moment when the whole of Europe is restless under
the Papal yoke, it is idle to suppose that there can
be any reaction in England towards it. A signifi-
cant illustration was afforded yesterday of the quar-
ter from which, if from anywhere, danger to our
present religious establishment might be apprehended.
The suggestion that the Bishops might be spared
from the Honse of Lords was loudly cheered, not
from the Roman Catholic, but from the Radical and
Nonconformist quarter of the House, and by this
circumstance Sir G. Grey pointed an unaswerable
retort to the argument we are considering. If it is
proper to impose an Oath on all members who are
ill-affected to the present constitution of the Church,
then, beyond all question, such an Oath ought to be
exacted from the members and friends of the Libe-

ration Society. It was further argued, with equal
justice, that all the restrictions of the existing Oath
which can possibly possess any force are retained in
the proposed form. The first clause omitted is that
which abjures the opinion that " Princes excommu-
nicated by the See of Rome may be deposed or mur-
dered by their subjects." Can it be believed that
any English or Irish Roman Catholic capable of
sitting in Parliament would now even dream of
this detestable doctrine ? And if there is such a
person, would he be restrained by any conditions
whatever from the far inferior crime of breaking an
Oath ? The next omission is the Oath "to defend
the settlement of property within the realm."
What sane person, again, would propose to sub-
vert titles 150 years old ? The next is that
abjuration of any attempt to subvert the Protestant
Establishment which, as we have shown, is in the
first place unnecessary, and in the next place cannot
reasonably be required of the Roman Catholics
without being at the same time required of the Non-
conformists. Lastly, there is that renunciation of
any equivocating intention which, as even Mr.
Walpole admits, is ineffectual against any one who
allows equivocation at all. In every other respect
the proposed Oath is. the same as that of 1829, and
contains exactly the same words respecting the
jurisdiction of the Pope. Nothing, therefore, is
retrenched but what is superfluous, and to abridge
superfluity has been the chief object of all our•
recent legislation respecting oaths. Many of these
arguments were admitted by Mr. Walpole, and,
indeed, he almost:professed his readiness to surren-
der the old form of oath, it a form were introduced
which should be the same for all members alike.
This is to give up the -whole principle of the oppo-
sition as represented by Mr. Whiteside and his
friends, for it is to admit that the Roman Catholic
Oath may be wisely altered without injustice and
without danger. It would, no doubt, be desirable
that all questions of this sort should be set at rest
by framing one form of oath for all members alike.
All should be on an equality as legislators, and it is
alike impolitic and unreasonable to fetter the action
of any special class of representatives in a delibera-
tive assembly. This object, however, as Sir G.
Grey pointed out, might be attained by a slight
alteration in Committee, and if the Opposition
would rather pass a general than a special Bill, Mr.
Monsell and his friends may gladly accept the alter-
native. But the principle of the Bill is now too
plainly established to be further resisted, and in
one way or another the Roman Catholics must
be relieved of this offensive relic of their former
disabilities.

POST.—The two main grounds on which the ad-
vocates of the abolition of the Roman Catholic test
oath rest their arguments consist in the general inu-
tility of all oaths of a similar nature as safeguards
against the evils which they are intended to pre-
vent, and the peculiarly offensive tenor of this oath
in particular. By the act which was passed in
1822 for the relief of Roman Catholic subjects a
certain form of oath was prescribed to be taken by
them in lieu of the oath of allegiance, supremacy,
and abjuration ; and, dismissing for the moment
the consideration of its utility, it is certainly im-
possible to contend that it is not couched in a form
as grossly offensive to the feelings of those called
upon to take it as can well be imagined. The Roman
Catholic desirous of occupying a seat in Parliament
after declaring that he will bear true allegiance to
the Sovereign, and do his utmost to maintain the
succession to the Crown as by law established, is
further required to swear that it is not an article
of his faith, and that he abjures the opinion, that
princes excommunicated by the Pope may be de-
posed or murdered by their subjects ; that he will
defend the existing settlement of property within
the realm ; that neither the Pope nor any other
foreign potentate possesses any spiritual or civil
jurisdiction within the realm ; that he disavows
any intention of subverting the existing Church
Establishment ; that he will not abuse his privi-
leges to disturb the Protestant religion ; and,
finally, that all these declarations are made in their
ordinary sense, and " without any evasion, equivoca-
tion, or mental reservation whatsoever." Such being
the substance of the oath, it is urged with great
plausibility that it is framed from beginning to end
on the supposition that the person taking it is to be
regarded as a disloyal citizen, who renounces sedi-
tious doctrines previously entertained by him, and
who, even at the moment of declaring himself a
good and faithful subject, is justly open to the sus-
picion of lying and equivocating, in order the more
easily and securely to carry into effect his disloyal
designs. Against an assumption so odious the
Roman Catholics very naturally protest, and, in the
discussion which took place in the House of Com-
mons yesterday, those who objected to the abolition
of the oath were necessarily compelled to defend the
truth of this assumption, inasmuch as they had to
maintain that the oath offered a safeguard against
designs, which, without it, would probably imperil
the constitution. Mr. Whalley stated this in express
terms when he said that a Roman Catholic entering
Parliament and taking this oath to a great extent
changed his character, and separated himself from

the great body of his co-religionists; and Mr. White-
side apparently endorsed this opinion when he pointed
out that the oaths acknowledging the royal supre
macy imposed by Henry VIII. and James I. were
regarded with such disfavour by the Holy See that
all persons administering or accepting the oath were
forthwith excommunicated. Of the tenor of the
oath imposed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act there
can be no diversity of opinion, and the only 15511ei
left to the House of Commons to decide was whether.
however offensive the language in which it 10
couched, and- however odious the imputation it
conveys- on the loyality and veracity of the re-
cipient, it does not in effect furnish a guarantee
against covert attacks by Roman Catholics on
the established form of government, and on the
Protestant Church, which it would be impolitic• to
remove. After a warm debate the house decided
this question in the negative, the motion for the
second reading being carried by 190 against 134
votes. If a Roman Catholic entertains the desig• ns
which the existing form of oath obviously attributes
to him, the mere acceptance of that oath will not,
it is urged, deter him from carrying those designs
into execution. This is an argument, however,
which, as Mr. Whiteside justly remarked, would
equally apply to the ordinary oath of allegiance.
If a man can be guilty of high treason he would
have no hesitation in committing perjury,
and COW
sequently an oath of allegiance can never operate to
prevent a person becoming a rebel. It is certainly
true that those objections which are based on the
insufficiency of the oath to secure the objects for
which it was framed cannot be limited in their
application ; but there is on the face of the oath
administered to Roman Catholics so transparent
an admission of the possibility of its being &Bre'
garded by the recipient, that its form cannot,
be justified either according to the canons ef
logic or of good taste. It is intelligible to eau
upon a man to swear allegiance to a particular
individual, and to abjure doctrines which, either
rightly or wrongly, are supposed to be held by
members of his creed ; but it is manifestly ab-
surd to require him to declare that the oath 00
administered is taken by him without equivocation
or mental reservation. If a Roman Catholic can
be capable of placing, by some mental operation, a
different construction on the several declarations
he is called upon to make in respect to the dis-
charge of his political functions, he is equally ear
able of doing so with that final declaration in which
he disavows all intention of equivocation. In point
of fact, the fallacy on which the concluding decla-
ration of the oath is based is so gross and transpa-
rent that its admission -into the formula can only be
accounted for on the supposition that those 30°
framed it had some vague notion that they could
shackle the operations of the human mind. There
are, however, more broad and general grounds on
which the expediency of retaining oaths such as that
imposed on Roman Catholics may fairly be ques"
toned. The tendency of past legislation, and mere
especially of that antecedent to the present centurif
undoubtedly was to fence off the Protestant section
of the population from the remainder ; whilst that
of more recent legislation has been to place all sub-
jects of the Crown as nearly as possible on the same
footing. Viewed in. this light, the preservation 01
test oaths can only be regarded as rnischieven
However extravagant may be the authority
the Holy See from time to time claims to exercise+
all classes of the people are equally satisfied that
these pretensions are purely nugatory. In Roniau
Catholic countries—such, for instance, as France-:"
the principle that the jurisdiction of the Pope.l'4
completely subsidiary to that of the State is cit.'
tinctly understood, and no attempt is made, nor
it considered necessary that such should be made'
to require Frenchmen, no matter what their creed,
to affirm on oath so self-evident a proposition. The
oath imposed on Roman Catholics in this counts):
cannot make them loyal if they desire to be othera
wise, and the House of Commons have only see,
in true accordance with that growing spirit of tole'
ration which has distinguished the past half centurit
in refusing to retain on the statute-book a der
which is simply an insult to a large section of Ile`
Majesty's subjects.