The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

11. But if it was really intended to give those words any
value and effect, to prevent persons from seeking a re-
versal of that arrangement, the words ought to have been
made intelligible. It was not enough for Sir Robed Peel,
however great his authority, to stand up in the house and
say, " I have introduced these words for that purpose."
He had no power to construe the act after it was passed ;
and what was required was, that the words should have a
definite reference to the object which they proposed to se-
, care. Did they strengthen their social system, increase
the respect and reverence de.y to the law, help to bind
classes together, and strengthen the foundation of social
obligations by calling upon men to contract particular ob-
ligations in regard to certain portions of their duty, se-
lected, culled, and picked out from the rest, and leaving
all the rest unnoticed? On the contrary, it had the op-
posite effect. To respect the settlement of property was
part of the duty of every citizen. If a man did not perform
that, there was the machinery of courts to call him to ac-
count ; but to call upon him to take an oath that he would
respect the rights of property entitled him to say that he
was not bound to recognise other rights which were just as
sacred. (Hear, hear.) In religious matters, if they were
to take one duty of Christianity, and oblige all persons to
enter into a very solemn covenant to observe that duty,
would not that have the very grievous and disastrous effect
of weakening the general basis of obligation? (Hear.) It
was desirable, therefore, to get rid of words weak-
enedwhich.
rather than strengthened the foundation of civil obli-
gations. The last of the hon. and learned gentleman's
ob-
jections related to the repeal of the oath against subverting
the present Church establishment, as settled by
tliaownwiofththine
these realms. He fully granted that an al
oath of 1829 was a serious matter, and ought ranot lightly to
question ; and they ought
be dealt with. (Hear hear from the Opposition.) It was
part of a great constitutional solid ground, to tam-
not, except upon material, real, and_
per with those provisions (Hear.)ofthebleaswo.ofopi.nlo,
filo:aced:l-
- he had for very many gears
upon experience and on observation of the working of this
oath, that although questions of this kind always
of this kind
lwaysmust be
open to a great deal of consideration as to time and place,
yet that it would be well when declarations
with regard to the property of the Church could be re-
moved from the statute-book. He did not think any good
was produced by this declaration. Even if it had the
effect in practice of limiting the action of some one, two,
or three gentlemen who gave a very large construction to
these words, he should still ask if that small and minute,
he might say insignificant and trumpery, amount of secu-
rity and defence, whatever it might be, at all comparable
to the mischief done by keeping up a cause of heartburn-
lug in the minds of a large class of our fellow-countrymen ?
(Cheers.) He wanted to know, was the Roman Catholic
entitled, or was he not, to sit there on terms of equa-
lity with other members ? If they chose to say—" In
1829, we admitted him, it is true, to the franchises
of the constitution, but we only authorised him to exer-
cise them in a restricted sense ; we allowed him to come
within our doors, but we said to him, by the voice of the
law—" There are certain subjects which we alone can han-
dle, and which are too sacred for you to touch ;" if that
was their doctrine, he granted they were justified in main-
taining these words. He did not believe it was with any
such intention that the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert
Peel were parties to the framing of this oath. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman said the oath was
received at the time with acclamation by the Roman
Catholics and their friends. It was not surprising that
the Catholics, seeing no great reason to object to the oath,
should, both from motives of prudence and of gratitude to
those who were making great exertions and sacrifices in
their favour, have been unwilling to throw difficulties in
the way, and should have put a*liberal construction upon
the oath proposed to them. But it was quite an error to
say that it was received with acclamation by the friends of
the Roman Catholics. They acquiesced in it with the
greatest difficulty ; and it was only through fear of pro-
longing the frightful evils connected with the continuance
of the Catholic question, that they were induced to accept
that oath. (Hear, hear.) But he could not consent to
stand on any narrower ground than this; he held that the
Roman Catholic was entitled to the same liberty in that
house as any other member. (Cheers.) Upon that broad
principle he founded his adoption of the opinion that the
sooner they were rid of the terms contained in that oath
the better. (Hear, hear.) Before the time of Catholic
emancipation the property of the Church was, in a Parlia-
mentary sense, regarded almost as consecrated property.
He knew not whether the hon. member for Montrose, or
some peculiarly audacious Radical of those days, might
have entertained notions of a different character. (Laugh.
ter.) They made no motions ; or if they did, such opinions
wore looked on as only those of a small section ; there
was no large organised party, no great breadth. and
depth of opinion prepared to deal freely with church
property. In that state of things, when it was considered
an obligation incumbent upon Parliament, though not ex-
pressed, to keep their hands off the property ofthe Church,
he did not at all wonder that it should be thought quite
warrantable to say that what was assumed as to Protes-
tants should be required of Roman Catholics in express
terms; and that was not inconsistent with the view that
they were to be on an equal footing in the house. But how
stood the matter now? Did members think themselves
entirely precluded, under the terms on which they sat
there, from giving votes which affected the property of the
Church ? Why, on Tuesday night, a majority of that house,
including some gentlemen who sat opposite, declared their
intention in the most emphatic manner to deal with the
property of the Church, and that in a mode the most free
and sweeping, by the process of extinction. (Hear, hear.)
Ho regretted that vote; but, nevertheless, it was given.
Now, he wanted to know, was that a lawful vote for Pro-
testaut members? ("No," from Mr. Drummond.) Tho
hon. member for Surrey said no. But in the opinion of
the 129 gentleman who gave that vote, it was a lawful
vote; and if it was within the competence of Protestants
to give such a vote, did they or did they not hold the
opinion that it was a vote which it was not competent
for Roman Catholics to give? (Hear, hear.) That was a
most serious question- -too serious to be treated as a
matter of party. He thought that a most dangerous doe •
trine to hold, though it was the only one which could
justify and support the terms of the oath. He repudiated
and protested against that doctrine ; for he was convinced
that its authoritative adoption by the legislature would
lead to consequences never sufficiently to be deplored.
Upon that ground he contended that Lord John Russell
had done well in inviting them to clear away those por-
tions of the Roman Catholic oath. The nature of an oath
recommended the proposition of the noble lord. There
was great advantage in having one oath for all the members
of an assembly like that. (Hear, hear.) Some thought it
better that they should come to thedischargeof their duties
without any oath at all. lie did not agree with them. He
thought that an oath tended tokeep up that solemn and re-
verential temper with which men ought to address them-
selves to the discharge of high and solemn duties. (Hear.)
But the oaths ought to be framed in a manner adapted to
that object. They ought to be brief, simple, and, if it
could be so contrived the same for all ; they ought to go
directly to their point, and to be divested of all unmean-
ing and useless matter • in order that the words they used
under that solemn sanction, in the presence of God, might
be used with a sense of the presence of God, and with a
temper befitting men who were doing a solemn act. If
there were to be oaths' that was the spirit in which they
should be taken ; and if such was the spirit, the oaths
ought to bo short, simple, to go direct to the point, and,
above all, to avoid the use of ambiguous language, which
only served as a trap for the conscience. (Hear, hear.)
He did not iu the slightest degree censure the framers of
this oath in their times and circumstances; but at present
it was neither more nor less than a trap for the conscience.
Roman Catholics sitting in that house had a claim to re-
lief from an oath which bound them to matters which he
declared, he could not tell how, if a Roman Catholic, he
should be able to construe. (Hear.) He should be placed
in a situation of much difficulty between the obligations
which ho felt he owed to his constituents and his country,
and the apparent and prima facie meaning of the words of
the oath. (Hear, hear.) Having that feeling, therefore,
it was not surprising that he should think it desirable to
get rid of words which were so vexatious and entangling
in their character, and so entirely worthless with reference
to the security of our national institutions. (Hear, hear.)
He had hardly another word to say upon the bill itself,
but his hon. and learned friend had complained of his
noble friend for having gathered a multitude of different
legal obligations to take different oaths, into one neck as
he called it; and disposed of them all at once. His hon.
and learned friend was somewhat severe when he com-
pared his noble friend in the execution of that process, to
the Emperor Caligula; he doubted whether his hon. and
learned friend was correct in ascribing to the Emperor
Caligula the idea which he had pressed into this discus-
sion, for it was a greater monster—namely, the Emperor
Nero—who used the expression which his hon. and learned
friend had attributed to the Emperor Caligula. The Em-
peror Nero did say it would be a good and desirable thing
if the people of Rome had but one neck in order that
they might be destroyed at once. However, his hon. and
learned friend compared the destruction of these oaths to
the destruction of the people of Rome, but he must confess
he was thankful to his noble friend for having given but
one neck to these oaths. That the human beings should
be bundled up together in order that they might be de-
stroyed at once was a horrible thing for a man to desire,
but to collect together a set of, useless, needless, mis-
chievous, unintelligible, and perplexing obligations, that
do nothing but give occasion for embarrassing the feelings
of young and tender consciences, or to encourage old meu
If disobey their conscientious obligations, was quite a dif-
ferentt thing. The one could boar no comparison to the
?lir", and lie thought with regard to a matter of this kind
presenting
really renderedfrlend, in bundling all the oaths together, and
ing them at once to the axe of the executioner, had
his a considerable and conspicuous service to
country, re,
Mr- NAPleLtueers*)
into parliam4tirn
Rus-
sell had openly complained that heretofore Lord J. Rus-
wed his intention to introduce theJows
breaking iato
the ;,lit, by this measure he was burglariously
precated the abodino
se in order to admit them. He de-
racier of the Pap e n of anti-papal oaths while the elm-
exceeding length, u7„,letrie- unchanged. He argued, at
never dormant amdiitien ofllatter point,
of the safeguards which le dilating upon the
,Poroe, and for the great value
referred •to Lord Somers, Lboeaa provided against it. He
piatharn, Lord Camden,
and other authorities in favourrdothtehe Protestant bulwarks
and protested against insulting
• to come into the house, not in a uglyrajs by asking them
rai,the oath wag
the
hbou.ll2.tsienwtehries
backdoor mode. He contended that h'ae.
Mr. GlaAston
persons
smin the:: in former'"ked
framed it assaint,ediothaanst
w.aloirthtoe
Christians,
whether our duties now were less
times,mr. ja.nda.c.opnlicliuLdeLdrmwiothßEani allusion to tl,ocabtrh.:.;:st
in
ncrl a.
the ye(
Gladstone
,eb.ua
t.
debate
seen-
sion-day), and a Scriptural quotation.
• interrupted the chancellor of the Exchequer with o
posed correction, which had been met
with good-natured ridicule, vindicated himself, and pro
importantfr om
many of the objections of the bill. Beluertgayraveeryn
one was that it released all beneficed.
Is because
tak-
ing the oath of supremacy. many
againstainrsrisotteecoltuiophonth
he knew that the oath had been
of course
who wished to combine the opinions of Rome with the emo-
luments of the Church of England. Of that class, ,
Mr. Gladstone did not know the existence, The clause on
this subject had been, no doubt, introduced withttoautthofe
knowledge of Lord J. Russell, but not without h
some other people.
Mr. H. T. LIDDELL said that the sole object of this
measure was to admit the Jews, for which, although he
had hoard Mr. Robert Grant advocate such admission, lie
had never been able to make up his mind to vote. His
constituents, however, would be unwilling to see any new
measure of exclusion carried. Among the other reasons
which weighed with him was the belief that if Jews were
a lmitte,l to Parliament they would protest against the
prayers with which the sittings of the house were com-
menced, and he did not see what answer could be made to
suttien appeal..
J. WALUSLEY, supporting the measure, cliaree-
-7,—,U
1..
~akj.,..
~/,44.ae as a great constitutional question. lie wished
-74.:f-,1
~,,--,-.1 vernmeet would make up their minds not to
i.
;,,...43..: , t, but to stake upon it their existence as a Cabi-.
tee se 1 st-Yee_
li case he had no doubt that it would lie carried.
1-71: ';,...,93:,,4 .: -S':.)` DEGAEE expressed his conviction that the
~,frir.." . _ not support Lord. John Russell if he should en-
.7,../..„.7„.,e _se!,
(
1
le''''';' e' i'.- 1,44114 ntirry put Me threat of proceeding by reselu- ,
Ile'ld VerS 113 e e.
ee- et Iv