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

IMPERIAL PAR :uI DI

' HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST 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 Tter.
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 ,Parliament, which he ridiculed, he said
there was no reason to doubt the 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-

gene 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 Ireland, 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 slightest distinction 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 the animadversion
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 persons, 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 wore
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 ono 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-
tants. 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
BO 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 Parliament 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
bY3oßoman Catholic bishops and archbishops. Mr. O'Con-
nell and other eminent Roman Catholics had expressed
othemselves to the same effect. It would be a gross injustice
t
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. He (Lord Derby) drew abroad 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. He 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
bo 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-