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

LAW OF EVIDENCE BILL.

Mr. SCULLY asked the hon. member for East Suffolk
whether he intended to proceed with the Law of Evidence
Bill this session ?

Sir F. KELLY said he intended to proceed with the bill
immediately the Government fulfilled the promise they
had given to fix a day for the purpose.
Sir G. GREY said he thought the hon. gentleman could
proceed with tho bill immediately after the motion of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday next.
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. Ho 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 in Ireland. With
respect to the matter under discussion, ho 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 thesneasure because
it had been brought forward by an individual member.
The 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.
He 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 sho Id only be the oath of allegiance.
But if that limited and utilitarian view of affairs was to be
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 propcsed by the Secretary of
State ? It was a mere legal form ; and so long as oaths
were not discontinued the oathof 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 por-

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 were 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 the 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, be 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 th 3 house. The right hon. gentleman has
raised the important questions of retaining the statement as
to the temporal power of the Pope and the 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 occasion, 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
termsofsnbjects. The
question equalit
perfect yiswwithhetohuerr
good
dtesctame Protestant itealnlowhe-
shown why that claim should be refused. In one observa-
tion of the right ,hon. gentleman I entirely concur, viz.,
the remark he made as to the different spirit in which
questions of this kind are treated now, as compared with
the manner in which they were received some years ago.

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 we 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 bo excited in this country disas-

,rous to the Roman Catholics themselves. Let me remind

he 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 tho Roman Catholics themselves. I think we
may well take our chance of such feelings as that arising.

Will any one state now that thoy 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-
ralities Bill 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 uiows 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.
Nov 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 • one 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
he 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 ?
Why, 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 one
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. IIoRsMAN, 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 ho 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 -19
The announcement of tho numbers was received wi
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 hased upon
the report of a committee which had sat three or four
sessions, it was rather hard upon the house that it should
have been delayed until so late a period when 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 the 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 ono year.
The discussion was continued by Lord E. HowAnu, 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. Nowde-
gate, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Hennessy, Sir J. Shelley, and Sir
W. Jolliffe, all of whom pointed out some 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 read a second time on
that day three months.
In the course of hiS reply, Mr. VirraEns 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.
the
cond time.amendment
was negatived by 76
to .1169p,oann ad
readdthiYeisibiolln, a second
Several other bills were also advanced a stage, and the
house adjourned at twenty minutes to three o'clock.