The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COIVIIVIONS—Tms DAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Cheshire Lines Transfer, Chesterfield, Newbold, and
Dunstone Road ; and Saint Philip and Jacob's Parish
(Bristol).
REFEREES ON PRIVATE BILLS.
Colonel WILSON PATTEN moved that the following
committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the
Court of Referees on private bills :—Col. Wilson Patten,
Mr. Dodson, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Edward
Pleydell Bouverie, Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Stanley, Mr.
Ingham, Mr. Scholefield, Mr. Woodd, Mr. Bonham Carter,
Mr. Ennis, Mr. Thompson, Mr. G. Hardy, and Sir John
Shblley.—Five to be the quorum.
The motion was agreed to.

GLASGOW AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY

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discussion, was withdrawn.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, as an amendment, moved 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. The 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 he considered schismatic,
heretical, and corrupt, and he took the course
ho 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 I.? 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 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 timo 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.
(LEFT SPEAKING )