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

EXECUTIONS WITHIN PRISONS.

Mr. GOSCHEN asked the hon. member for Oldham
whether he intended to proceed with his bill for legalising
executions within the walls of the prisons.

Mr. HIBBERT said it was not his intention to proceed
with the bill at present.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

On clause 6 being proposed,
Sir H. CAIRNS moved the restoration, in the form of
oath contained in the bill, of the following words contained
in the oath prescribed by Geo. 4, c. 7, s.2:—" I do swear that
I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of
property within this realm, as established by the laws ;
and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure
any intention to subvert the present Church establishment,
as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly
swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I
am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the
Protestant Religion or Protestant Government in the
United Kingdom."
Mr. HUNT said he regretted to be obliged to oppose the
motion of his right hon. friend. He hoped the bill would
become law, and that the present expiring Parliament
would distinguish itself by sweeping away that which had
been a source of annoyance to her Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects. He could not agree with those who
looked upon this oath as one of the bulwarks of the Church
of England. On the contrary, he thought that such was
not the case, and, that being so, he could not vote for the
motion of his right hon. friend.
Mr. DISRAELI referred to the history of the oaths and
the passing of the Emancipation Act, and touched upon the
question of the Irish Church. He was sure his colleagues
in that house would believe him when he said he had no
desire or wish to insult their religion ; on the contrary, he
honoured their ancient faith ; but he must ask them to re-
collect the compact entered into thirty years ago between
Roman Catholicism and Liberalism, the object of which was
the destruction of the Established Church bi Ireland. With
respect to the matter under discussion, he asked the Roman
Catholics just to place themselves in the position of the
Protestants, and he thought, then, they would hesitate to
agree to such an alteration as was now proposed. He
objected to the bill as it was originally brought forward
by the honourable member for Limerick, because he
felt that the Roman Catholic oath as it at pre-
sent stood contained nothing which a gentleman of the
highest honour and nicest feeling could not have taken,
and he could not believe that any Roman Catholic gentle-
man would look upon it as a barrier between him and a
seat in that house. He objectedalso to the measure because
it had been brought forward by an individual member.
Tho hon. and learned gentleman who had just addressed
the house expressed his opinion that there should be no
oath at all ; but he could not agree to any such proposition.
Ire thought that oaths ought to be as rare as they were
solemn, but it appeared to him that upon such a solemn oc-
casion as taking their seats in that house it was fitting that
the Most High should be appealed to. The Secretary of
State, who had addressed the house on the subject, sug-
gested that there should only be the oath of allegiance.
But if that limited and utilitarian view of affairs was to bo
taken, why have any oath at all ? The Throne would not
be less secure if there was no oath of allegiance. The
Queen reigned in the affections of her subjects, and if they
sat in that house without any oath he did not suppose it
would diminish her authority. (Hear.) But the experience
of mankind had taught them that the order and proprieties
of life were best secured by appealing on solemn occasions
to the fundamental principles of the constitution. But why
take the oath of allegiance as proposed by the Secretary of
State ? It was a mere legal form ; and so long as oaths
were not discontinued the oath of allegiance was one which
every one might take, and more especially to a sovereign
who acknowledged her authority to be limited, and whose
proudest boast was that she ruled by constitutional autho-
rity. But when they came to take an oath to the constitu-
tion under which they lived, the difficulty arose that part
of the constitution was the Church, and he had himself
contended against anything which could diminish the
strength of the present constitutional system. He had
been led to take that course not because the Church was
in danger. He believed, if all the motions of hon. members
below the gangway were carried, and the connection be-
tween Church and State terminated, the power and autho-
rity of the Church would not be diminished; nay, if the
Church held her property under a secure tenure, confis-
cation might not be so easily effected as hon. members
imagined. He could not but believe that it was per-
fectly possible to frame such an oath. as all members
of the house might fairly take ; but he thought
that such an oath should be introduced by the
responsible advisers of the Crown. The Government had
undertaken something of the sort on a former occasion,
but they failed to carry it through because they sought
to effect another object by a side-wind, instead of at-
tempting it in an open manner. Under those circum-
stances, if the Cabinet of the Queen would not undertake
the duty, it should be assigned to the cabinet of the
House of Commons—a select committee ; and when he
had asked for a morning sitting it was his intention to•
move that the bill should be so referred, with an in-
struction whether it might not be possible to substitute
a new form of oath. But the bill had taken its course,
and they wore now in committee; and he therefore felt
bound to consider how far they could meet the just
claims of the Roman Catholic members, for if they took
exception to some words at the commencement of the
oath, he would not oppose the omission of them. Hon.
members might suppose that the bull Ccena Domini was

still in existence ; but, knowing as he did that assur-
ances of mutual kindness and goodwill had been ex-
changed between some of the Roman pontiffs and the
Protestant sovereigns of this country, he had himself no
feeling of alarm about the bull Ccena Domini. He was
not one of those who believed the stability of the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland depended upon oaths. He
could not agree that the Church was in a weak state;
on the contrary, he believed it was a strong institution,
and that tho Established Church in England and Ire-
land would flourish and increase in influence and autho-
rity. If he were asked what would be the effect of
Parliament consenting to this measure, he believed it
would be disastrous to the Roman Catholics themselves.
He thought it was calculated to revive the religious as-
cerbity which they had been trying to remove for the
last 30 years. Under those circumstances, he had no
hesitation in supporting the motion of his hon. and
learned friend for the introduction of words in accord-
ance with the institutions of the country; for he feared,
if the opinion went abroad that Parliament had renounced
its allegiance to the Established Church in this country,
that a sentiment of alarm, and perhaps of indignation,
might be aroused by that policy, which would prove
very prejudicial to the interests of the Roman Catholic
body. For these reasons he begged to support the motion
of his hon. and learned friend. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY—I have stated the feelings I entertain
with respect to the bill at great length on the second read-
ing, and therefore I shall trouble the house with very few
observations. I shall not follow the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) into those topics which he has introduced
into his speech, the discussion of which would only tend
to divert us from the plain and simple issues which are
now before the house. The right hon. gentleman has
raised the important questions of retaining the statement as
to the temporal power of the Pope and tho effect of the dis-
union of Church and State, but these questions are out of
place on the present occasion. Neither will I enter into-
the question raised by the hon. member (Mr. Hunt) whether
it would not be desirable to abolish all oaths and substitute
a declaration. That is a question which, though well de-
serving consideration on a fitting occa§ion, is not at. all
raised by the bill now before the house. The real ques-
tion at issue is this. Our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects
prefer a claim which I think is properly preferred by a
member of that Church—(hear)--to sit in this house on
peTrifleectqueqesutiaolnityiswwithhethouerr
good
dtescataunste feaelialowbe-
sutermbjes of
fellow-
subjects.
shown why that claim should be refused. In one observa-
tion of the right ihon. gentleman I entirely concur, viz.,
the remark he made as to the different spirit in ;hid;
questions of this kind are treated now, as compared with
the manner in which they were received some years ago.