The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-13 00:00:00

In 1854, the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed a
bill the effect of which would have been to substitute an
uniform oath, precisely in the terms of the oath now sug-
gested in the bill before the house, to be taken by all
members of Parliament. That bill was opposed by the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and the great party of
which he is the head. Again, in 1859, a bill identical to
the latter was proposed by the right hon. gentleman the
then Attorney -General for Ireland. But parties were
then so evenly balanced, that leave to introduce the
bill was only given by a small majority of ten. That bill
was also opposed by the right hon. gentleman and the
whole party opposite. Now what do wo see ? We see the
bill proposed by my right hon. friend assented to, and the
principle affirmed by a large majority on two occasions.
Then Parliament refused to admit any alteration into the
form of oath. Now Parliament admits that there are parts
of that oath which it is desirable to expunge, and they limit
opposition to the parts which are involved in the amend-
ment of the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Belfast. The result of our discussions has proved that these
questions now are likely to be entertained in a spirit of
greater fairness, greater moderation, and more Christian
charity than on any former occasion. I come now to what
the right hon. gentleman said at the close of his speech,
that he apprehended that if those words in the oath which
had reference to the settlement of property and the mainte-
nance of the Established Church in Ireland were omitted,
that strong feeling might be excited in this country disas-
trous to the Roman Catholics themselves. Let me remind
the right hon. gentleman of a fact to which I adverted on
the second reading of the bill, that every denomination of
Protestant Dissenters, whose zeal for Protestantism no one
can doubt, and whose sympathy for the tenets and doctrine
of the Church of Rome no one can suspect, have petitioned
the house that the bill may pass ; they think that the prin-
ciple which the bill contains is just and reasonable. We
come now to the only point at issue, whether we should
retain or not the words with reference to the maintenance
of property and the declaration that the Roman Catholic
members should not attempt to subvert the Protestant Esta-
blished Church. It is needless to argue that this oath does
not constitute any real defence of the Established Church.
The right hon. gentleman has freely conceded that, but he
seemed to imply that some other persons in this country
might deem that it did constitute a bulwark of the Esta-
blished Church, and that its abolition might excite feelings
detrimental to the Roman Catholics themselves. I think we
may well take our chance of such feelings as that arising.
Will any one state now that they think that retaining this
oath with regard to the Established Church is any bul-
wark at all to that Church, or to the Protestant interests
of this country ? I stated before that I thought the oath
unnecessary and ambiguous, and that was a reason why,
at all events, it should be modified. No one can attempt to
deny that part of this oath is ambiguous in its terms, and
that different interpretations have been put upon it; that it
does operate in the sense that those who are anxious to re-
tain it desire that it should. Ido not know what the right
hon. gentleman means by an alliance between the extreme
Liberal party and the Roman Catholic members of this
house for the subversion of the Established Church. It
was very shortly after that oath was framed Lord Derby,
then Secretary for Ireland, introduced the Church Tempo-
ralitiesßill into this house—a bill which reduced the tem-
poralities of the Irish Church by a large amount, and re-
duced the number. of archbishops and bishops ; but I never
heard that any reproach attached to the Roman Catholic
members of this house for supporting the Government of
which Lord Derby was then the organ in introducing that
bill. That bill was passed by a large majority, but no one
ever said that it was introduced with the intention of sub-
verting the Established Church. Other measures have been
since proposed, but certainly not with the intention of sub-
verting the Established Church. I say nothing of the mo-
tion of the hon. member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), to
which reference has been made. He proposed his measure
as a member of the Church of England, and that measure
was supported by the Roman Catholic members of the
house. But when the right hon. gentleman asks who is to
be judge what are the questions on which Roman Catholic
members are to vote, I say that a man's own conscience
must be judge of his own acts. The difficulty with regard
to this oath is that some feel that it is an obligation on their
conscience, and some feel that it is not, and we have no
right to think that either would act other than conscien-
tiously according to the uiews which they took. If the
oath is liable to this ambiguous construction, that is a
reason why it should not be maintained. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman says he desires to see one uniform
oath for all members of Parliament, and hoped that we
should come to that. He, however, asked the right hon.
gentleman who introduced the bill (Mr. Monsell) to throw
his bill over in order that another bill might be introduced.
Now I also think that it would be most desirable for one
uniform oath to be established ; and if the present bill is
passed, the difference between the oath taken by the
Roman Catholic members and the Protestant members
will be so small that I cannot conceive it possible that we
should not soon come t• ono uniform oath. On the other
hand the amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman—
(Sir Hugh Cairns) would raise an inseparable barrier
against one uniform oath. The right hon. gentleman sup-
ports that amendment, and yet says that he desires to see
one uniform oath established. Does he mean to say that
ho is about to propose an uniform oath, when • it was one
which would impose upon Protestant Dissenters the de-
claration which is now taken by Roman Catholics, that
they will not attempt to subvert the Established Church ?
W-hy, the very insertion of the words of the amendment is
a declaration that he will not have one uniform oath, but
that he wishes to perpetuate distinctions between Roman
Catholic members—distinctions to which they attach no
value, and which are no security to the Established Church.
It is only those useless distinctions which we now wish to
abolish. For these reasons I oppose the adoption of the
amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman. I believe
the best thing to do under the present circumstances is to
pass the bill as proposed by the right hon. gentleman the
member for Limerick, reserving for future consideration,
which must soon come, whether' there should not be one
uniform oath taken by all members. This bill will be ono
important step towards the attainment of that object, and
for that reason I shall give it my support.'
Mr. WHITESIDE and Mr. HENLEY supported the
amendment, which was opposed by Mr. HORSMAN, who
denied that the existing oath was the result of any com-
pact entered into by the Roman Catholics in 1829, and
quoted the language of the late Sir Robert Peel in proof of
his assertion.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said he had been assured by the
late Mr. Goulburn that so far was Sir Robert Peel from
underrating the security of the oath which had been
adopted with the concurrence of the Irish Roman Catholic
prelates, that to the day of his death he had expressed his
approval of it as a means of saving the country from those
bitter controversies which it had always been his object
to calm and prevent.
The committee divided—.
For Sir H. Cairns' amendment 147
Against
Majority against —l9
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers.

The clause as originally proposed was then agreed to,
and the preamble having also been agreed to, the Chairman
was ordered to report the bill without amendments to the
house.

The house then resumed.
RECORD OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
The bill passed through committee.
POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.

Mr. VILLIERS, in moving that the Poor-law Board
Continuance Bill be read a second time, explained that it
did not effect any substantial change in the constitution of
the commission, but simply continued it for the limited
period of three years. The remainder of the provisions
were founded upon the recommendations in the report of
the select committee.

Mr. HENLEY thought that as the bill was based upon
the report of a committee which had s,,t, three or four
sessions, it was rather hard upon the house that it should
have been delayed until so late a period whon the days of
Parliament were numbered. A Cabinet Minister had
issued his address to his constituents in view of the com-
ing election, and it was impossible to communicate with
persons in the country upon the details. For example, the
measure would- sweep away the Gilbert unions without
their having an opportunity of being heard in their de-
fence. He would not oppose the second reading, however,
but reserve to himself perfect freedom of action in com-
mittee for the purpose of limiting the continuance of the
board to one year, leaving the other matters for the present
untouched.

Lord R. CECIL pointed out several provisions in the
bill which were not recommended by the select committee,
but had been introduced by the framer of the measure on
his own responsibility. In his opinion the preferable
course would be to pass a simple continuance bill for one
year, reserving the question of a further continuance, or
the permanent establishment of the board, until the meet-
ing of the new Parliament.

Mr. KINNAIRD believed tho Government would gain
nothing by pressing forward the bill in its present shape,
especially as it had only been in the hands of members
since Friday last.

Sir J. TROLLOPE and Mr. NEATE urged. the President of
the Poor-law Board to content himself with simply pro-
posing a continuance bill for one year.
The discussion was continued by Lord E. HOWARD, who
expressed his surprise at the anxiety of hon. gentlemen to
bring the session to a close and go down into the country,
and by Mr. Davenport Bromley, Mr. A. Mills, Mr. Newde-
gate, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Hennessy, Sir J. Shelley, and Sir
W. Jolliffe, all of whom pointed out soy.ne omissions and
defects in the bill, which rendered any attempt to carry it
through Parliament in its existing shape, utterly futile.

Mr. PACKE moved, as an amendment, and Sir M. W.
RIDLEY seconded it, that the bill reat'L a second time on
that day three months.
In the coUrse of his reply, Mr. VILL/ERS said that all the
objections which had been raised against the second read-
ing were only so many reasons why- the bill should be read
a second time, and go into committee. He intimated his
readiness, however, to withdraw some clauses of minor
importance to which exception had. been taken.
Upon a division, the amendment was negatived by 76
to 69, and the bill read a second time.
Several other bills were also advanced a stage, and the
house adjourned at twenty minutes to throe o'clock.