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

THE SUN, J2ONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1854.

nounce the temporal supremacy of the Pope. In this de-
claration at the time of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill the
Roman Catholic laity expressly stated that they considered
themselves hound by their religious principles, and entitled
by their rights as Englishmen, to maintain the supremacy
of the Holy Father in spiritual matters. It was, there-
fore, impossible to urges that the oath of allegiance sup-
plied the place of the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.)
But the noble lord's oath was not to be taken by members
or the House of Commons alone, but it was to be substi-
tuted in every case where the oath of supremacy was now
required ; and he would ask the noble lord, who in his
famous letter had denounced those "unworthy members"
of their own church who were disposed to question the
supremacy of the crown, what would be the effect of
allowing those persons to take the proposed form ? The
37th article contained an acknowledgment of the royal
supremacy, but they had had experience that that article
might be subscribed in a " nen-natural sense"—(cheers)--
with the aid of this qualifying oath as an inter-
preter, there could be no doubt whatever that the con-
struction of the article by those persons would be
completely established. (Hear, hear.) The object of
the noble lord's proposition, then, was to benefit the
Roman Catholics, and the Romanising pseudo-Protestants.
(Hear, hear.) He ventured now to appeal to the Dissent-
ing members. If it were a question between the church
and them, hu knew he should meet with no sympathy from
them ; but he ventured to submit to their most serious
consideration whether a movement which was evidently
intended to benefit the Roman Catholic members and those
members of the English Church who were divided from
them by a very thin wall of partition, was one that they
would be disposed to encourage? He would ask them to
consider that the Established Church was one of the firmest
barriers even to thesuselve: against the encroachtnehts of
popery—(derisive cheers)—and ho would caution them that
if they broke it down for the purpose of establishing
Roman Catholic ascendancy, they would find that the
little finger of Rome was thicker than the loins of Eng-
land. (Hear, hear.) The oath was ono of the securities
devised at the passing of the Relief Act, and it had been
framed in terms which had been considered by the heads
of the Roman Catholic body. In the pastoral which they
issued at the passing of the Relief Act, they stated that a
legislature which had so raised them from their prostrate
condition was entitled to their reverence and love. (Hear.)
Since then it was no doubt true that attempts had been
made to disturb the settlement which had then been come
to, but the noble lord had always stood manfully in the
breach to resist them. In 147 the noble lord stated that
he did not think it would be wise to alter a settlement
which had been arrived at after so many conflicts and
so much consideration. (Cheers.) Ho also declared that
no necessity had been shown for such an alteration.
Had any more necessity been shown since? (Cheers.)
It was only the circumstances in which the noble
lord had pl iced himself that had reduced him to this
unfortunate eosition. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
had expressed himself in similar terms on several sub-
sequent occasions ; but he now objected to that part
of the oath which bound Roman Catholics to preserve
the existing settlement of property, on the ground that
that was secured by law. (Hear.) But no one knew better
than the noble lord the imprescriptible character of
the claims of the Romish See ; for in 1851 he quoted with
approbation the saying of Du Carron, that though Rome
might relax many of her claims, she never lost sight of
them ; for
,she knew neither infancy nor widowhood ; she
learned many things but forgot nothing. The noble lord,
however, seemed to have reversed that antithesis. He
seemed to have forgotten some things and to have learned
nothing. (Laughter.) Either this parb of the oath was
not objected to—and in that case it was idle to alter it—or
if it was objected to, it must be because the Roman Ca-
tholic members felt themselves in some degree hampered
by it ; and in that case ho besought the house not to give
up this small remaining fragment of security. (Hear.)
He thought he had now established his case, namely, that
the new oath was calculated only for the benefit of the
Roman Catholics and of the Romanisers. The noble lord
wished to toss over the supremacy to the Roman Catho-
lics, by requiring from them only a mutilated recognition
of it. When he had prostrated all the securities which
had been so carefully devised at the time of the Relief Act,
and which had been accepted by the heads of that Church
as such ; when he had levelled these barriers, he would
then, by the aid of those who fought under the banners of
civil and religious liberty, get rid of the Christian form of
the oath, and so procure the admission of the Jews into the
Legislature—the ultimate and carefully guarded object of
the noble lord. (Cheers.) The noble lord bad contrived
most ingeniously to carry out the idea of Caligula, for ho
had given to the most clearly cherished principles of the
constitution one neck, in order that he might destroy them
all at a single blow. (Hear.) What had happened since
the nobl lord stood forward as the champion of the Protes-
tant cause, to snake him adopt such a widely different
course? Had the conduct of the Roman Catholics been
such as to call for further concessions ? Had those " un-
worthy members" of the English Church, whom the noble
lord charged with having done so much to weaken
the doctrines and principles of the Reformation, al-
tered their views ? Why, then, did he come for-
ward to aid those parties against whom he had
been so constitutionally opposed upon every former
occasion? • (Cheers.) However formidable the noble lord
might be in the ranks of their opponents, he trusted that
they (the Conservative members) would not be dismayed.
For his own part, he committed himself fearlessly to the
conflict. He had ventured to take the lead on this occa-
sion, but he knew that there were those behind him with
stout courage send good hearts, who, if he should fail,
would be ready manfully to wage battle with the noble
lord upon this important question. He could not believe
that their Protestant fellow members would be wanting to
them on such an occasion ; and he was satisfied that they
would be able to show a suelicient force to defend the bul-
warks
of their Protestant Constitution from the assault of
the noble lord upon the supremacy of the sovereign, the
established religion of the country, and their common
Christianity. (Loud cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
help thinking that his hon. and learned friend had intro.
duced into the discussion a great deal of matter connected
with religious controversy that might advantageously have
been spared—(hear, hear)—and which tended much more,
he should say from experience, to darken and taint the at-
mosphere of the house, and to blind and bewilder the
judgment of its members, than to assist in the elucidation
of any difficulty connected with the law or constitution.
(Cheers.) The subject had been treated by his hon. and
learned friend with reference to three classes—first, the
Jews ; secondly, those whom ho designated the Romanising
Protestants ; and thirdly, a class whom he appeared to
hold in worse odour even than them, the Roman Catholics.
As, however, the hon. and learned gentleman bore very
lightly on the Jews, he would follow his example, and say
very little about them. His hon. friend had, in fact, re-
ferred to them merely for the purpose of assailing the con-
sistency and the singlemindedness and integrity of purpose
of his noble friend the member for the city of London. Now,
it would be very easy for him, whatever his opinions might
be on questions relating to what were termed the principles
of religious liberty, to say that the reputation of his noble
friend for his consientious attachment to those principles
would be handed down to posterity through many genera-
tions, said could want no vindication either from his own
lips or from those of his colleagues. (Cheers.) Ho (Mr.
Gladstone) stated that as an impartial witness, because it
had often been his lot on various occasions and in various
senses, to differ from his noble friend upon questions of this
kind ; but the testimony he had rendered was a testimony
so eminently due to him, and so just, that ho was sure that
even his hon. and learned friend, except in the heat of
debate, would never himself have questioned it. (Cheers.)
Nothing would Immune easy than to refute the charge which
the hon. and learned gentleman had brought against the
noble lord, namely, that he had changed his views upon
the subject since his political connexion with the city of
London. If ho (Mr. Gladstone) was not mistaken, he had
himself heard his noble friend in 1810, and again in 1815,
dilate upon the question of Jewish emancipation in pre-
cisely the same manner as he had since done. In 1817,
being then challenged upon this matter, his noble friend
put upon record a declaration iu that house which ought
to have closed the lips of the hon. and learned gentleman
opposite. (Mr. Gladstone then read an extract from a
speech of Lord John Russell, in which he stated that in
184 b he promised to a deputation of Jews that he would
on some future occasion introduce a measure for their com-
plete emancipation, whereas his connexion with the city of
London did not commence until the following year. -His
hon. and learned friend having laid before the house a
number of imaginary facts, must next proceed to give a
number of reasons equally imaginary, to account for the
coarse which the noble lord hart pursued. He said that the
noble lord's proceedings had been the fruit of a compromise
entered into in consequence of divergences of principle be-
tween the noble lord and his colleagues upon religious ques-
tions. Recalling to his recollection, however, the career
of his hon. and learned friend, and the various political
connexions into which he had himself entered—(e, laugh)
—he (air. Gladstone) did out think that that portion of
his speech was as unobjectionable and elevated in point
of taste and feeling as he was bound to say the hen.
gentleman's speeches almost uniformly were. But if that
was the case, his speech wile still less felicitous as a piece
of Parliamentary tactics. While the hon. gentleman was
finding fault on the score of divergence of opinion with a
Government who upon this subject were perfectly united,
there was within three feet of him a sight hon. gentleman
under whose leadership he had served in the late Govern-
ment, and who altogether differed from him on this ques-
tion. (Laughter.) When at the close of his speech the
hon, and learned gentleman said there were behind bins
divers stout and able-bodied persons who would come for-
ward if he himself failed, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not
help thinking how odd would be the effect if the deficiency
of his hon. and learned friend should bo supplied by two
persons who, he should say, were certainly the stoutest
and most able-bodied in debate of those who sat opposite,
namely, the right hon. gentleman the Member for Bucks
and the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. (Loud
laughter.) He believed he might advert to a yet more
tender connexion, for no tie could bo closer or more affec-
tionate than that which united law officers of the Crown,
and yetr
_eat heuennefl
rioaor
int
u.wujaat nht
eithlipes
predicament
erhcniojecnda.
ingentlemanlearned
e
his hon. friend on this Point. (Renewed
withStdlahraoueligsvehainter) So here was three stout and valiant champions,
°uela'rninecsltegaecitnolefmmaani'sing defence,upanwould deal
deficiency
of
h
anw(i lost deadly blows. (Laughter.) The hon.
s
gentleman hail charged his noble friend with
everyiunnpdo thenlearned
it oneho e
themost
having made the Roman Catholics a present of the supre-
macy of the Crown.
Sir F. THESIGER—Not the whole of it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII, his
hon. and learned friend said that the proposed oath only
required a "mutilated acknowledgment of the supremacy;"
and although he never expected much liberality from the
other side, be must frankly confess that he thought the
hon. gentleman had conceded a great deal too much to
eianrdthhe his
house, hon
his noble friend in admitting that his proposed oath
contained any acknowledgment of the supremacy at all.
sufibristec ht
Surely, if the supremacy meant anything, it meant an
upon
andecclesiastical
learned
friendsupremacy
. dilate
he was astonished at the inaccuracy of his impressions
he
When he
respecting the oath of Supremacy. And unless the terms
of that oath were fresh iu the recollection of hon. members,
or unless they had the opportunity of frequently referring
to the pasteboard copies in the box on the table, they
might be weak enough to believe that the oath of supre-
macy contained something about supremacy. But those
who had given their attention to the subject could not fail
to be aware that, singular as it might be, the oath of
supremacy contained nothing whatever on the subject of
the supremacy of the Crown. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. G. PRILLIMORE—The Sovereign is called the
head of the Church.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You say
that that is in the oath of supremecy. ?
, Mr. PHILLIAIORE—No; but in the oath of allegi-
ance.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That
from a distinguished member of the legal profession

(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If that was the depth of
darkness of a distinguished member of the legal profession,
what more than Chnmirean gloom must cover the gene-
rality of the members of that house ! (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He was speaking of the oath of supremacy,
and the hon. and learned gentleman quoted something as
from the oath of allegiance, which after all was not in it ;
for that oath said nothing about the Queen being the head
of the Church. And he would go further, and seer that
the hon. and learned gentleman would find it extremely
difficult to show that the expression "head of the Church"
was applicable to her Majesty by any law of this country.
Mr. PHILLIMORE—It is "governor of the Church."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
were approximating to the truth by slow degrees. But it
would be better for him not to discuss the matter with the
hon. and learned gentleman, but to take the facts as they
stood. It was a fact that the oath of supremacy did not
declare the supremacy of the crown. (Hear.) It con-
tained two propositions—first, an abjuration of what was
called the deposing doctrine, and then a denial of the power
and juris liction of the Pope within these realms.
Sir F. THESIGER—Of the ecclesiastical power.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
a declaration, large as words could make it, excluding the
jurisdiction of the Pope, and any power or pre-eminence he
might have within these realms. But that was a denial of
the power of the Pope, not an assertion of the power of the
crown. That was to be sought for from other sources.
How was this ? The term " oath of supremacy" had at-
filched to this oath from the time when it was first enacted
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 'r hen, no doubt, it very
well deserved the title, because at that time it began with
these words :—" I, A. 8., do hereby testify and declare
on my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only
governor of this realm , as well in all ecclesias-
tical things and causes as in matters temporal." That was
a perfectly intelligible phrase—that was an oath of supre-
macy. (Hear, hear.) But it had been altered, and when?
The hon. and learned gentleman said it was a great bul-
wark of the Protestant constitution. But it was altered
just at the very mo:uent when the constitution became
emphatically Protestant. It was not until the revolution,
in the first year of William anti Mary, that the oath of
supremacy was altered ; then the declaration of supre-
macy, the clause of supremacy, was omitted from the oath.
The title of the oath had remained ; the substa,nce had been
completely altered ; and it was now most inaccurately de-
scribed as an oath of supremacy. It was an oath for the two
purposes he had described--the abnegation of the deposition
doctrine, and the denial of the jurisdiction of the Pope.
Would the hon. and learned gentleman say that he was
refining on this matter, and that the two things were
identical? (Hear, hear, from Sir F. Thesiger.) So
far from being a refinement, it was a broad, clear,
palpable proposition ; it was not only a constitu-
tional truth, but almost a constitutional truism. Tho
supremacy of the Crown, acknowledged by the Church of
England, as members of the Church of England, was not
acknowledged by other gentlemen who were members of
that house, of whom he saw a portion near him, any more
than it was acknowledged by the Roman Catholics. Those
gentlemen were willing to concur with the members of the
Church in an oath that abnegated and repudiated the autho-
rity of the Pope ; but they were no more willing than the
Roman Catholics themselves to concur in an oath which
asserted the supremacy of the Crown. ("Hear, hear,"
from the Dissenting supporters of Government, with ironi
cal cheers from the Opposition.) He must say that thin
was not a subject for jeer or laughter ; such a course was
utterly inconsistent with the relations that ought to prevail
between members of that house, for he apprehended that
those who sat there for the purpose of discharging the grave
responsibilities that, attached to the House of Commons,
ought to sit there on terms of equality. (Cheers.) And it
was not competent to the hon. gentleman, according to his
own private opinion, to define and circumscribe, and far
less to define and circumscribe by contemptuous signs, the
liberties of other people. (Hear.) He had thought it per-
fectly notorious, and not requiring subtlety or argument of
any kind, that the gentlemen of this country who belonged
to the various bodies of Protestant Dissenters did very ge-
nerally refuse to admit the supremacy of the Crown. Was
that true or false ? (Hear, hear.) He contended that it
was not only true, but notorious and palpable. Then what
became of the jeers of gentlemen opposite, who said that
to deny authority to the Pope within this realm was the
same thing as to assert the supremacy of the Crown. He
must protest against that doctrine. (Hear, hear.) There
was another body who were entitled to hold still stronger
language, and to protest still more indignantly against
this attempt to curtail their liberty. The members of the
Presbyterian Church Establishment of Scotland were not
bound to admit the supremacy of the Crown in the Church
of England meaning ; and they, at all events, ought not
to be taunted on that account, for they sat in that
house under rights as well defined and recognised as those
of any other members. They came there, not by tolera-
tion, but fully recognised as presbyteriaus, and as such
they took the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.) If the
hon. and learned gentleman assented to that proposition,
would ha still say that an oath which denied the jurisdic-
tion of the Pope was the same thing with an oath which
asserted the supremacy of the crown ? (Hear, hear.) The
doctrine of the crown's supremacy was no doubt held by
the Church of England ; it was firmly embodied in its au-
thorised religious documents; and to those documents
they must go if they wished to find it, or know what it
was. The hon. and learned gentleman, with all his acute-
ness, would wear out his eyes in the search before he could
find it in the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) If that were so, his charge that the Government
was snaking a present of the doctrine of supremacy to the
Romanising Protestants, as he called them, fell to the
ground ; for this plain reason, that that doctrine existed
elsewhere, but not in the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned gentleman had used an expression
calculated to raise some prejudice, by saying that the alte-
ration of the oath of supremacy would not be applicable
to that house alone, but to all other occasions on which
the oath was enjoined to be taken. Whether his legal
construction were sound or not was perfectly immaterial ;
for the only two classes out of Parliament whom it was
thought good policy to tie up and bind by a distinct decla-
ration of the doctrine of supremacy were the clergy and the
members of the universities, and the obligations of those
two classes would remain in substance exactly as they were
independently of this bill. The doctrine really was con-
tained in the 37th article of the Church of England ; there,
both the positive and the negative part of the doctrine were
to be found. The positive part explained very clearly the
various relations of the crown to the Established Church;
and the latter part of the article dealt with the case of the
Bishop of Rome, in terms which were admirable for their
simplicity and clearness—" The Bishop of Rome hath
no jurisdiction in the realm of England." (Hear.) It
was said the articles were interpreted in a non-natural
sense. He had never heard of any person attempting to
show that there was the slightest difficulty about the con-
struction of the 37th article. Could they say as much for
the oath of supremacy ? The hon. and learned gentleman,
though he spoke of it very highly, and said that it had re-
ceived a judicial construction, had not attempted to state
what that construction was. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not
believe that it. had received a judicial construction ; at all
events, its explanation was a matter of the very greatest
difficulty. There had been various attempts to reconcile
the declaration that the Pope had no jurisdiction in this
realm, with the recognition by the law of acts performed
by the Roman Catholic Church, as the solemnisation of mar-
riages and the bestowal of holy orders. They
might be re-
conciled ; but the hon. and learned gentleman was not jus-
tified in speaking of this oath as ono framed in terms so
happy, simple, and direct, that they were calculated to
baffle the wiles of those who sought to evade it. On the
contrary, the words in the article were such as would bind
men's opinions; for when a multitude of words were used,
they could not be safely relied on as securities of the con-
stitution. He hoped the house would bear in mind that
the oath of supremacy contained not one word about the
doctrine of supremacy, which the Government was accused
of making a present of to Romanising Protestants, and as-
serted nothing whatever as to the power of the crown in
ecclesiastical matters. Not only so, but if the hon. and
learned gentleman's construction were the true one, its
effect would be (what he, perhaps, might like very well) to
create a new law of exclusion against a large class of mem-
bers sitting in that house, to narrow the pale of the consti-
tution, and to take civil rights and privileges from those
who now enjoyed them. (Hear.) To the change proposed
with respect to the Roman Catholics the hon. and learne
ined
d
that Catholics were longer to be called on to
abjure the opinion that princes might be deposed and
murdered by the Pope, and said that in the Reform
a
gentleman had urged various objections. He comp
Act of 1832, the noble lord (Russell) had continued
to maintain that declaration. That, as a mere arguntentena
ad hominese, was not of much value but it was inaccurate
as to the principle concerned. What Lord
J. Russell said
was, that it was an insult to ask a Roman Catholic to say
that he did not hold the opinion that princes might be
deposed and murdered by the sea of Rome ; for the very
phrase bespoke the illegality of the action. No mancp.ld
assert the contrary—that princes might be
m ceraY
the Pope of Rome, or any one else. It was salt _ the_ e bdoc-
trine was once held in the Church of Rome. No doubt the
deposing doctrine was held by large and powerful parties
in that Church ; and was contested by other large and
powerful parties ; but the hon. and learned gentleman bad
with eiy missed the point in charging the -noble lord with
inconsistency. For his own part he did not attach the
slightest value to the use of these words, either as to the
renunciation of the opinion that princes might be mur-
dered, or even that they might be deposed by authority of
tho See of Rome. And the hon. and learned gentleman
had himself ingeniously admitted that he did not think
there was much efficacy in these securities. He said,
" Let us stand by them to the last, however feeble they
may be." (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. DI ESIGER—It was not in reference to Roman
Catholics that I used Lima expression.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be much to be regretted if the house attached weight
and value to declarations of this kind, which they really,
did not carry in themselves. (Hear, hear.) These decla-
rations of the renunciation of particular opinions gave no
security; the strength of the Church lay in the attachment
of the country. (Hear, hoar.) That attachment was best
pmraonm. ote(dhbeyerswhat) s
ou nfiatre da
sclass
with
eu s
e class,
was cone
anti
me
awith
toed, h
was well convinced by experience that its harmony, its
unity, its usefulness, for the great purposes for which it
existed, were best promoted by the exclusion and avoid-
ance, as far as might be, of these unhappy topics of
religious difference. (Cheers.) .And the more they could
reduce their law into a state of c,orrespondence with
that opinion, the more they could put out from the
law that which, without being of weight and efficacy in
itself, became a source of strife amongst them, and a cause
of great soreness to the tender consciences of their fellow
Christians and fellow men, the better they should dis-
charge the duties that were committed to them on behalf
of the crown and the people of England. (Cheers.) The
render of another declaration, in the following terms :
hon, and learned gentleman also found fault with the sur-
"l do swear that I will uphold, to the utmost of power,
the settlement of property within this realm established by
the laws." It was a sight, he would not say pitiable, but
one to stir regret, to see a gentleman of masculine and
powerful intellect, and of such great and deserved emi-
nence as his hon. and learned friend, attaching value to
such words as these put into the oath of the Roman Ca-
tholics. (Hear, hear.) What was the construction of
these words? He could hardly conceive any construction
which the freak and fancy of an individual might not at-
tach to words like those. Professing to be bound by them,
he might say he could not concur in any act, however
simple, which tended in the slightest degree to affect the
existing settlement of property. (Hear, hear.) These
words were introduced to meet the apprehensions that
existed in this country before 1829, with reference to
opinions supposed still to linger among the people of Ire-
land regarding the arrangements of property under Charles
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 Robert 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-
oure. Did they strengthen their social system, increase
the respect and reverence due to the law, help to Jana

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-
leeted, 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 which weak-
ened rather than strengthened the foundation of civil obli-
gations. The last of the hon. and learned gentleman's ob-
jeotious related to the repeal of the oath against subverting
the present Church establishment, as settled by law within
these realms. He fully granted that an alteration of the
oath of 1829 was a serious matter, and ought not lightly to
be dealt with. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) It was
part of a great constitutional question ; and they ought
not, except upon material, real, and solid ground, to tam-
per with those provisions of the law. (Hear.) He con-
fessed he had for very many years been of opinion, founded
upon experience and on observation of the working of this
oath, that although questions of this kind always must be
open to a great deal of consideration as to time and place,
yet that it would be well when declarations of this kind
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, ho 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-
ing 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
1329, 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 wo 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 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' he idea which ho 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 ono 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 bandied 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 men
to disobey their conscientious obligations, was quite a dif-
ferent thing. The one could bear no comparison to the
other, and be thoughtwith regard to a matter of this kind
his noble friend, in bundling all the oaths together, and
presenting them at once to the axe of the executioner, had
really rendered a considerable and conspicuous service to
his country. (Cheers.)
Mr. NAPIER complained that heretofore Lord J. Rus-
sell had openly avowed his intention to introduce the Jews
into parliament, but by this measure he was burglariously
breaking into the house in order to admit them. He de-
precated the abolition of anti-papal oaths while the cha-
racter of the Papacy remain unchanged. He argued, at
exceeding length, upon this latter point, dilating upon the
never dormant ambition of Rome, and for the great value
of the safeguards which had been provided against it. He
referred to Lord Somers, Lord Chatham, Lord Camden,
and other authorities in favour of the Protestant bulwarks
and protested against insulting the Jews by asking them
to come into the house, not in a mealy way, but in this
backdoor mode. He contended that when the oath was
framed it assumed that all the persons in the house were
Christians, and, in answer to Mr. Gladstone, he asked
whether our duties now were less solemn than in former
times, and concluded with an allusion to that day (Ascen-
sion-day), and a Scriptural quotation.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, who had early in the debate
interrupted the chancellor of the Exchequer with a sup-
posed correction, which had been met Ise- Mr. Gladstone
with good-natured ridicule, vindicated himself, and pro-
ceeded to say that he was not prepared to coincide with
many of the objections of the bill. But a very important
one was that it released all beneficed clergymen from tak-
ing the oath of supremacy. He insisted upon this because
he knew that the oath had been a protection against many
who wished to combine the opinions of Rome with the emo-
luments of the Church of England. Of that class, of course,
Mr. Gladstone did not know the existence, The clause on
this subject had been, no doubt, introduced without the
knowledge of Lord J. Russell, but not without that of
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, he
had never been able to make up his mind to vote. His
constituents, however, would be unwilling to see any now
measure of exclusion carried. Among the other reasons
which weighed with him was the belief that if Jews were
admitted to Parliament they would protest against the
prayers with which the sittings of the house were com-
menced, and ho did not see what answer could be made to
such an appeal.
Sir J. WALMSLEY, supporting the measure, charac-
terised it as a great constitutional question. He wished
that the Government would make up their minds not to
ti ill° with it, but to stake upon it their existence as a Cabi-
net, in which case he had no doubt that it would he carried.
Mr. NEWDEGAEE expressed his conviction that the
house would not support Lord John Russell if he should en-
deavour to carry out his threat of proceeding by resolu-
tion. He dwelt with much earnestness upon the question
whether the Christian character of the nation were to be
preserved, and ridicule.! the opinion that unanimity
would be promoted by such a measure as this. Bringing
warnings from English history against concessions to
Roman Catholics, and introducing the acquittal of
the seven bishops, the cheers heard at Hounslow camp and
the tears of King James, he expressed a hope that the
House of Lords, the real representatives of the religious
feeling of the country, would make a stand, as they had
previously done, against such a measure. The policy of
the Government was as unacceptable to the people of
England as was a similar policy iu 1688.
Mr. MIALL thought they had had too much historical
lore on a simple question. In answer to appeals to dis-
senting members of the house, he said that if the measure
were a just ono, it would not be opposed by them merely
because it was acceptable to classes with whom they dif-
fered. Ho did not believe that the influence of Rome was
increasing, but if it were, political restrictions would not,
diminish it. We might as well try to exclude the sugges-
tions of the evil one by shutting doors and windows. He
believed that such remedies served to intensify the mischief
against which it was sought to guard, just as the belief is
witchcraft flourished as long as the law was sot in motion
against it. Why should Pi otestauts be so constantly
fearful for their own religion? The Pope had no more
powerful ally than the terrified imagination of weak Pro-
testants. Abolish all religious restrictions, and men would
soon calm down on this subject. He also thought that all
members of that house ought to be able to exercise an un-
fettered and uncrippled judgment in assisting to frame the
laws of the country, and he gave every portion of the bill
his cordial support.
Mr. WHITESIDE considered that while human nature
was what it was, oaths were necessary. Lord J. Russell
was opening a perilous discussion, of which he might not
live to see the end. He entered into an historical account
of the oath which is taken by Roman Catholic ecclesias-
tics, which he considered was an oath of fealty to the
Pope, against which the oath of supremacy was a pro-
test. He warned Lord J. Russell that if he announced
that, without any necessity or outward pressure, he
was determined to destroy every Protestant security,
the people of England would hold a different opinion. Al-
luding to Sir R. Peel, he denied that statesman the right
to be called the author of Catholic emancipation, for he
had sat unmoved and heard Plunkett and Grattan, but,
terrified by Mr. O'Connell, had framed a bill which had
been the cause of most of the misfortunes of Ireland. But
the Catholic oath had been framed with great wisdom; and
now those who adopted Sir Robert's policy, and revered
his memory, were going to abolish it without a blush. He
bitterly assailed Mr. Gladstone for ridiculing an oath which
he admitted he did not understand, and he quoted a ser-
mon which he had heard on the Quirinal, in which, in pre-
sence of the Pope and Cardinals, the preacher had pro-
nounced a eulogiuni on the University of Oxford for the
number of learned and active men she contained, who were
devoted to the Papacy. Mr. Gladstone showed how well
deserved was this praise. Mr. Whiteside then adverted to
another sermon, by Dr. Posey, in which he had sp
oked
the Revolution as so far from glorious that it was blasphe-
mous.
He believed that the Jew question had be en
dragged into this debate in order to insure its defeat. If
this bill passed, might not Baron Rothschild be Perreemisers
or Chancellor, and give away Church patrothage,e
faith it
th
judge in the Ecclesiastical Court on quevsetie onusitifl
regreti ?
(The Baron was present.] He gave his
against Jewish emancipation, but if a
hbilw
l for that pur-
pose, properly framed, were produced,i e ould give it
his consideration, though with his present convictiond
not
s he
should oppose it. (Roars of laughter.). But he di
believe that the Jews would always be alienated from the
faith of God, and he hoped to see Baron Rothschild take
his seat as a Christian, and help to maintain those Pro-
testant safeguards which the Chancellor of th%Exchequer
wished to destroy.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I eertaialy have beheld to-night a
somewhat novel spectacle on the subject of the admission of
Jews to Parliament and to office. The House of Lords
having several times rejected the bill which had passed this
house for the purpose, and the simple and separate purpose,
of the admission .of the Jews, .1. thought it might be as
well to put together the various provisions—(laughter and
cheers)—and to propose to enact that without religious
disability roma elected Iv the electors 9f this country

should take their seats by an oath in conformity with the
principle of religious liberty. Hon. gentlemen opposite
seem to think that a very ridiculous proposition. This,
however, is at least apparent, that whereas in every
former debate we have heard that Christians are united,
that there is ono characteristic which pervades all denomina-
tions of Christians, that Jews are totally a separate race, that
they are so divided from all Christians, that it is impossible
to admit them, and that the character of Christianity is a
broad and simple character, which is found in all the
members of this house. Instead, I say, of holding that
language, the Jews have been almost entirely omitted in
the debate of this night, and the differences between Pro-
testant and' Catholic have formed the whole staple of the
discussion. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, if facts and history
did not console me I might be deterred from asking the
house to affirm the second reading of this bill by the
denunciations which have been offered by the hon. and
learned
member for Stamford, and the hon. and learned
member for the University of Dublin. The hon. and
learned
member for Stamford says, " Here is an act passed
in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, that wise prin-
cess here is an oath framed for the security of Protes-
t Protes-
tantism ; is it possible that you can think of altering an oath
so sacred, and which more than three centuries ago was
enacted by the wisdom of that great princess, and by the
able statesmen who formed her council ?" Well sir, I might
have some hesitation, thus alarmed by the hon. and learned
gentleman's denunciations, from touching that oath, had I not
the consolation of seeing that that oath Wits totally repealed
by an act which was passed in the time of the revolution, so
that I cannot feel guilty of altering that oath, incense another
set of our wise ancestors, namely, King William and his ad-
visers, most properly thought fit to repeal it. Then came
the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin,
who says, " Here is an oath enacted by the wisdom of King
William and Lord Somers, you would not propose to alter it ?"
Why that might induce me to hesitate and to pause, were it
not that by an Act of the 10th 'Geo. IV., that oath, waS
entirely altered, and that those very persons whom it wanin-
tended by that oath to exclude, were admitted by the Act of
the 10th Geo. IV., so that the two acts which I am accused
of touching with irreverent hands, the act of that wise Prin-
cess Elizabeth, and the act of that wise Prince King William,
do not exist in the statute book, and therefore they having
been slain already, it is impossible for me to kill them a
second time. Now, this Act of the 10th Geo. IV. seems to
me either to answer the arguments of hon. gentlemen oppo-
site, or to place the debate on a totally different foundation /
They say, " Is it possible that, consistently with the Act of
King William, Roman Catholics can be admitted ? Here is
the security of that oath by which ecclesiastical and spiritual
jurisdiction is denied to any foreign prince es potentate."
Well that was intended to exclude Roman Catholics, but by
the act to which I have referred Roman Catholics are exempt
from its provisions ; and those words, " ecclesiastical"
and " spiritual," for their sakes, for their benefit in in-
dulgence of their scruples, are omitted from the oath.
Why, either one or the other of two consequences must
follow. Either the whole of the declamation which I have been
listening to for hours to-night is totally out of place, or else
this consequence must follow, that hon. gentleman opposite
are now proposing to reverse the policy of the Emancipation
Act. (Hear, hear.) Are you prepared to affirm that no one
ought to sit in this house unless they have taken that oath of
King William, and that Roman Catholics ought in future to be
excluded t (Hear.) Why, the hon and learned gentleman the
member for the university of Dublin said —" If a person does
not conform to the oaths which are enacted by the Bill of
Rights, he has no business to sit in this house." Does lie mean
by that allusion to the Bill of Rights, this oath of which I have
spoken I Does he mean that oath of supremacy so much al-
luded to If he means that, he denies that Roman Catholics
have a right in this house; if be does not mean that, his argu-
ment has no bearing on this debate. Then, observe what lam
accused of doing. We have heard from the hon. and learned
gentleman who has just sat down, that the oath of 1829 was
framed with consummate ability. Now, I have taken those
words which are applied to the Roman Catholics by the act of
1829. I have put them into the oath which I have inserted in
my bill—the oath of supremacy is altered for that purpose,
and those same words the hon. member for Stamford calls a
" mean and mutilated declaration;" and the right hon. gentle-
man the member for the university of Dublin calls them "weak
and washy words," (Cheers and laughter.) At one moment
it is said that these words have been framed with consum-
mate ability, and that it does great honour to the wisdom
of Sir Robert Peel to have framed such words ; but at the
next moment they are mean and mutilated, and weak and
washy, and it was exceedingly wrong of me to have thought
of introducing them, (Cheers and laughter.) What I have
proposed to do is, to take words which all the members of the
house could adopt. The persons against whom these words
were particularly framed—the persons against whom they
were intended as a bar and a security, were the Roman Catho-
lics, but you have admitted the Roman Catholics. (Hear,
hear.) Why, then, not take the words which you have al-
lowed to be sufficient for the Roman Catholics, and let the
Protestants, against whom you do not w:sh for a security, be
admitted by the same words ? (Hear, hear.) You do not
want the security against the Protestants ; these words,
" ecclesiastical and spiritual," were affirmed as a security
against Roman Catholics. You say you are ready to give up
these words so far as regards those against whom these words
were a security; but as regards the men against whom you
want no security, you will take and preserve these words as
the great safeguards of the Constitution. (Hear, hear.) Con-
sider what the Protestants of this country are as a community.
They don't want to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Pope.
(Hear, hoar.) They don't want the Pope's tribunals in this
country. (Hear,'hear.) They don't refer to the Pope or to
his authority on the subject of marriages, or on any transac-
tions of civil life, and therefore it is quite unnecessary, in ad-
dition to all the securities you have in their daily life, in their
worship on every Sunday, in their usual practices on every
day—to ask for any security from them that they are ready
to protest against foreign interference. (Hear, hear.) It
shows that no security is wanting. (Hear, hear.) Here were
a class of persons whom you did not admit, and whom you
said were not to be trusted, and you took security against
them; but you now find that these persons are to be trusted,
that your suspicions, whether well founded or not, are at all
events over; and you don't think it necessary any longer to
take bail against those persons; but against all persons you
do take bail, and it will be a satisfaction to me that if the
suspected persons are not subject to any restraint, you will
not put the restraint upon those who are not suspected.
(Hear.) The argument has gone so much on the various
statements I have made, that I am obliged to speak somewhat
on the general subject. It appears to me that an oath is a
very solemn proceeding. (Hear, hear, and a laugh from the
Opposition benches.) I cannot think it ought to be taken
lightly. I cannot think that the peers and bishops in the
House of Lords and the members of the House of Commons
ought to come here and declare, in the presence of God, that
which is a stale and unnecessary proposition. (Hear.) It
seems to me a degree of levity that ought not to be commit-
ted. (Hear.) Well, what is the declaration—what is the
oath ? It is in these words :—" I solemnly and sincerely
declare that I do believe, in my conscience, that not one of
the descendants of the person who claimed to be Prince
of Wales during the lifetime of the late King James 11.,
and who during his own lifetime pretended to be and
took upon himself the style and title of King James 111.
of England, and King James VIII. of Scotland and so
forth, has any right or title to the Crown of this realm,
or any of its dominions whatever, and I abjure
any allegiance to him; so help me, God." At the end
of that oath you say " so help me, God," thus using the
solemn form of an oath, when every one of us knew perfectly
well that there was no such person to claim any allegiance
from any person in this country. And then, in order to
blink the absurdity of it, the hon. and learned gentleman who
last spoke has said that he saw on the tomb in Rome, where
tho last of the Stuart family is buried—a tomb put up, I be-
lieve, at the expense of his late Majesty King George the
Fourth—(hear)—a certain inscription, and the last of that
family having been buried there, he thinks that he is a most
formidable Pretender--(laughter)—against whom you should
keep up this solemn form oath. (Hear.) Ought we not to let
this oath be buried in that very tomb in which lies the last of
the Stuarts (Hear, hear.) They were a false, a treacherous,
and a tyrannical race. lam very glad they were rejected, and
that none of the descendants of James the Second ever came
back again, or were allowed to claim any right to govern
this country ; but now that they are all departed, it is
not necessary that the members of this house and of
the other house of Parliament, in which there are several
bishops, should go through the form of this oath. (Hear.)
Then we go ou to the oath which is taken by Roman Catho-
lics ; I will come afterwards to the question of the oath of
supremacy. In this oath the Roman Catholics declare that it
is not au article of their faith, and that they do renounce
and reject the opinion, that princes excommunicated by the
Pope may be deposed or murdered- by their subjects, or
any persons whatever. The honourable and learned gentle-
man has said that I left these words in the bill of 1852
the bill for amending the representation. I did leave the
word " depose," but I left out the word " murder," which I
thought very insulting. (Hear.) I certainly left in the word
" depose," but I really don't think that paragraph is a para-
graph of any use. When wo are framing an oath it should
be a mere simple oath, that every member of this house can
take, whatever religious persuasion he may belong to. I
don't think it is worth while keeping up any reference to this
doctrine, which, whatever any gentleman may say, I do not
believe at this time forms the belief of the Roman Catholics of
this country. (Hear.) Then the oath goes on to say, "And
that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement
of property within this real," as established. On that I will
not attempt to , add anything to what has been said by my
right hou, friend near me—(hear)—in his elognent speech,
which, I trust, as the hon. gentlemen has std,ai will go forth
throughout the country producing the effect was so well
calculated to create. (Cheers.) Then the oath goes on to
say, " I do hereby declare that I will not try to subvert the
present Church Establishment as settled by law within this
realm." Now these words were put in no doubt in 1829 with
the view of their forming a security for the Church Establish-
ment. Let us consider a little in what sense an oath of this
kind ever gives you any security at all. (Hear.) When per-
sons are called upon to do a certain act ; when they feel it is
an obligation upon them which they may
upon to perform, the importance of
an be fairly called
oath—the
God to witness to the truth of what they say, and to their
willingness to perform eertain acts, no
declare, and do no doubt give a
very solemn sanction to what
I think give a security which the community has a right to
ask, and upon which they may depend. Now, for instance,
a man relating some transaction which may
f
ay.. be afterwards the
subject of a criminal process, amongst his lends at the dinner
table, may relate circumstances loosely and carelessly—he may
mix up with wait he has seen and personally known other
circumstances which he believes from having hoard, but upon
which he has no decided knowledge. That same man, when
summoned into a court of justice as a witness, on a criminal
trial, may properly be called upon to swear he did tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and under
that obligation, and in that presence, he will take care to re-
late only that which he is sure that he has seen, and to disre-
gard those circumstances which, in a careless moment, in
narrative amongst his friends, he interspersed in what he re-
lated, thereby showing that he had no objection to depose to
them on oath. (Hear.) So also with regard to the duty of
allegiance. All persons, I trust, who are members of Parlia-
ment, and other persons, who are called upon to take this
oath, are ready to perform their duty of allegiance, and, their
duty being solemnly called upon, to perform the taking of an
oath does not give an additional security for the performance
of that duty. (Hear, hear) But it is a very different thine°
when yelp ask men to undertake a duty which is contrary
to what they believe some other duty imposes, and what in
other circumstances they may find themselves 'unable to per-
form. (Hear.) Now, sir, on looking upon this act, a re-
markable circumstance occurs to me, which is an illustra-
tion of what I am saying. In the beginning of the reign
of Charles 11. our ancestors thought they should frame some
provision by which an insurrection such as had distinguished
the former civil war should be prevented, by which men
bound themselves not to take arms against the Sovereign, and
not to use, as the leaders of the popular party had done in
the time of Charles 1., the name of the Sovereign against his
own person. And accordingly an oath was framed, which un-
derwent, I think, seventeen days' debate in the House of
Lords, in these words, "I, A. • B declare it is not lawful,
upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the King,
and I do abjure that traitorous disposition of taking arras ou
his authority against his person, and against those who are
cemmissieneci by him." The terms wore very much debated,
and during these debates Lord Halifax, with his usual point
and wit, said that which never has been, and could not be
answered, I think. He said,—" An oath of this kind will
give you no security; if every man in this town had taken a

solemn oath not to break into his neighbour's house, and not
to rob it, no man for that reason would leave his door un-
bolted and his house open." (Laughter.) That was the say-
ing of Lord Halifax, as able and witty a man as ever perhaps
took part in the debates of Parliament; and what happened?
The oath was enacted, the first clause declared that in the
opinion of the majority that governed at that time it was not
lawful, on any pretence whatever, to take arms against the
King; but it afterwards happened that King James, in the
opinion of this country, of Whigs and Tories, violated the
conditions on which he alone could be allowed to reign.
Both parties took arms against him; the oath was totally dis-
regarded. By means of the arms they had taken against him
they dethroned the King, and in one of the first acts of King
William stands a clause by which that oath is totally repealed.
Such is the security of an oath against that vehicle men feel
to be their duty. The men of that day felt it to be their duty
to oppose King James in arms, and to dethrone him, and they
were not deterred by this oath, which had been framed with
such infinite care after 17 days of discussion in the House of
Commons. The same thing is applicable to this oath with
regard to the Roman Catholics. Ido not know how Roman
Catholics in general understand that oath; but this I know,
that there are only two exceptions of Roman Catholic mem-
bers who thought it was their duty to abstain from giving
their votes in cases where ecclesiastical questions came under
discussion. With these one or two exceptions, the Roman
Catholic members, who thought it would be for the benefit of
Ireland that the revenues of the Church establishment should
be entirely taken away, had no scruple or hesitation in giving
a vote for that purpose. (Hear, hoar.) How they understood
the oath it is not for me to say. (Hear, hear.) I remember
Mr. O'Connell explained that it did not mean revenues,
that it meant doctrine, discipline, and government of the
Church, and that he intended to leave the doctrine, disci-
pline, and government of the Church as it stands. (Hear.)
But what I know is, that this oath gives you no security
against those who are disposed to vote against the revenues
of the Church, and what I do know further, because I re-
member it particularly well is, that Lord Stanley, the present
Lord Derby, rose in his seat, he then sitting on this side of
the house, read the terms of the oath which I have just read
to you, with a few words that come further on in regard to
the Protestant religion, and asked then if gentlemen who had
taken that oath would vote on the question before the house
that night. (Hear.) Ido say it is a great evil and a great
mischief, that when a political question is before the house—
the question whether the Church establishment should have
certain revenues or not—a question upon which members
of the House of Commons should be free to vote as
their sense of what is due to the welfare of the country
dictates—there should be a certain set of members sitting
itnhetmhisthhaotasethaegay against
tanwnoht teomvoai a
n member can
got np
way
upon
dtealln
that question without a violation of their vote. (Hear,
hear.) You may say that the Roman Catholic members
have not asked for a change of this oath: They may
have considered it was a compact at the time, and that they
are bound not to ask for the removal of that oath. But I
say, without any suggestion from them, and without knowing
whether they wish for a change of this oath, that for the sake
of our proceedings, for the sake of giving to every member of
this house that freedom which he should have, for the sake of
not obliging a man to give a vote for which, if he gave it ono
way, he may be accused of violating a solemn oath, and for
which, if he gives it the other, ho may be accused by nearly the
whole of his constituents of deserting the interests of his coun-
try and the trust committed to him. Ido say that you should not
put members of this house in that situation, and that, yon _
should, by the terms of the oath, leave every man to-vote
upon every political question as he thinks it to be his duty.
Be his opinion whatever it may, he should be as free to give
effect to it by his vote on a question affecting the Church esta-
blishment—be it with respect to church rates or any other
matter—as he is on a question with regard to the malt tax or
the Exchequer bonds. Now, sir, I am told that this oath was
a solemn settlement made in 1825, and that it ought not to bo
disturbed. My right hon. friend near me has answered that
argument, but I certainly can bear witness that when for
about twenty-five years the country has been kept is agitation
by the discussion of this question and the difficulty of settling
it—when one'year there was a majority of five one way, and
the next year perhaps a majority of ten the other way—when
the Cabinet had been for years divided upon thelquestion, we,
who had no concern in the Government at that time, but who
were prepared to lend our aid in the settlement of a question
which we had long thought stood in the way of the peace and
tranquillity of Ireland, and of the rights of a great portion of
our feliow subjects, were ready to lend our aid to anything
that appeared to be a tolerable settlement of that question.
I remember perfectly well, and so does my right hon. friend
the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), a meeting of
some of the friends of the Roman Catholics, which was then
held at Sir F. Burdett:s. We then discussed the merits of the
proposed scheme and the objections to it. We discussed the
hardship of disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders, the
injustice of excluding Mr. O'Connell when Roman Catholics
were admitted, and the terms of the oath which we are now
considering; and the result was that wo wished to support the
Government in carrying that measure, but that there were cer-
tain alterations that we wished to make in it. Lord Althorp was
the bearer of our wishes to Sir R. Peel, and I perfectly well
remember his saying that ho was informed by Sir R. Peel
that the measure, as he had introduced it, was the best mea-
sure which he thought he should be able to carry, and that
the success of that measure would be endangered if the friends
of the Roman Catholics insisted upon any of those alterations.
With that declaration we were content. We supported Sir R.
Peel in all the divisions upon that subject, and we interposed
no amendments. But, sir, Ido think that at the end of a
quarter of a century, it is allowable to take into consideration
some of the forms of the oath then imposed ; and to consider
whether some parts of it, which bring on harsh and unplea-
sant discussions amongst the members of this house, are not
unnecessary, and oven almost absurd. I own Ido not think
that the terms of that oath are to be removed from the deli-
berations of Parliament; and I think it is a fair subject for
consideration, if we go into committee, whether we shall
keep that oath as it stands—whether we shall take the oath
in thebill, or whether any other terms shall be adopted. But
this I must say—that I do not think it is fair to keep up as
part of -the oath a declaration which puts a man under the
imputation of having violated his oath if he votes one parti-
cular way upon political questions. Now, sir, I come to the
question which has been so much argued, and upon which it
is said that no alteration should be made, and that is, the
negative declaration in the oath—" And I do declare that no
foreign prince, prelate, or potentate bath or ought to have
jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-emiuenco, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." I have already
alluded to the manner in which 1 propose to alter this part
of the oath; and I cannot•ithink that the removal of the ob-
ligation to take that oath'at all alters the laws of this coun-
try. The common law of this country denies to any foreign
prince or potentate jurisdiction or authority in this country.
If there are any persons against whom you wish to guard, it
is the Roman Catholic body. Now, with regard to them, you
have parted with the security you had. In the year 1829
that question was settled so far as regards Roman Catholics;
and with regard to Protestants you need no security. But
with regard to Protestants the question is not so perfectly
clear and plain as the hon. gentleman opposite seems to think.
The right hon. gentleman the member for the University of
Dublin (Mr. Napier) said that Lord Somers found this oath
perfectly plain. I have no doubt he did, because he under-
stood it as excluding Roman Catholics, and when it was the
law that Roman Catholics were excluded, nothing could be
easier than to take that oath, which denied that there was
any jurisdiction or power upon the part of Roman Catholics
—the whole tendency of the law being to deny them any
power or jurisdiction whatsoever. But since that time very
great changes have been made. What do you say to the law
of 1791, which allowed the performance of their religious
functions by priests of the Roman Catholic community ; those
priests receiving their power from a bishop, and that bishop
receiving his jurisdiction with the consent of the Pope of
Rome. The acts of that priest, in performing the ceremony
of marriage, are acknowledged. Can you then say that it is
quite clear that there is no jurisdiction or authority whatever
exercised by a foreign prince 4 You must say that it is not
so exorcised by the direct authority and consent of the law. '
But that there is no such thing I think it is very difficult to
aver. Now, let me remind the house of what occurred in the
case of the Sussex peerage, in the House of Lords. When
the case of the Sussex peerage was heard before Lord Lynd-
hurst and the other law lords, Dr. Wiseman was examined as to
his functions and his knowledge with regard to the law of mar-
riage at Rome. He said he had considerable knowledge, and
on being asked how he obtained it, ho said he was a_judlde
acting under an authority given him by the Pope. He
but
H
a said
he had no doubt that his*uthority was entirely' spiritual,
he said also that he separatedpei•s ons h
were lawfully married , that the w
personso h e didweren
debarredo t think
tame ; and that, under this apprehension
from the rites of the church if they did not respeetthey re-
maned separate. Now
his sen-
this is clearly a. very con-
siderable neessliidftecrar bhlee
hacdivgilivecrisciisqoupenincieon top ensueupon
th
ese estfrqoumhioisns
mar-
riage at c onsiderable length. and /tad declared that he was
guided by the decrees of the Council of Trent, and that his
decisions might be overthrown at Rome, the Lord Chanoellor
declared that ho was a good witness because be came within
the description of a person possessing certain knowledge rir-
lute officii ; and Lord Langdale
.said that ho filled a situation
and was engaged. in the performance of impor-
toarnitmillo importance, and
in order to discharge which properly he
was bound to make himself acquainted with the law of mar-
riage. Now, this person so declared by Lord Langdale in
the House of Lords to be engaged in discharging important
public duties was a Roman Catholic priest, carrying into
effect the decisions of the Court of Roam upon tho im-
portant subject of marriage. Well, it is true, that he has no
temporal authority in this country, and that his decrees have
no civil effect; but although wo may say that he had no spi-
ritual authority, I cannot think the matters() totally clear and
manifest as some hon. gentlemen have chosen to describe
is. I think that now you have admitted Roman Catholics to
this house, it is much better that you should insert in the
oath words than we can all take, and with respect to which
there should be no ambiguity, One honourable gentleman
found fault with the words " temporal and civil" and de•
Glared that he would rather have no such words in the oath.
Well, I do not think that these words are essential to the
thoughtallde°
oath. I introduced them because, being words taken by
securities
fieths eofiltobuse
aecotf
of 1829,
intsimdei rheta
beila
considered.
of.de therad
desirable as a security that Roman Catholicsg should continue
to take them. Another gentleman has spoken of the obliga.,
tion of persons who receive a benefice in this country to take
the oath of supremacy, and has
asked me whether I would
confine this bill to members of Parliament. Well, I was
taunted one year by an honourable member because I
confined the bill to members of Parliament I have, how-
ever, no objection to confine it to members of Parliament,
and all persons holding office, because that would attain the
object I have in view. I believe I have now gone over the dif-
ferentd parts of the oath, and I have now, therefore, only tor
a very few words with respect to the general effect of the bill,
.
by which Jews will be admitted to seats iu this house and to
offices under the Crown. Now I have no new aril"ent to use
onlY upon this subject. But it appears to ma that the
that they differ
argu-
ment ever used against the proposition is,
thatton If the
widely and entirely from us on the subjecits
portions who
principle that the house wishes to
adoptuld be excluded front
differ from us in religious opinions should
maintaining the pre-
this house, they will be quite right i
as in the case of the
sent exclusion of the Jews; but when,
of the Protestant
Roman Catholics, and as in the case
and varieties of religious dissen-
ters, you admit that differences a
co of legislative and civil
opi-
nions aro not a bar to the perforeman
Jewish body are a body well
functions, I then say that
the
of the State—and, if
affected to the Crown—good ci
•
Parliament, as able to give you advice
elected as members of
upon all matters that concern the State as any other subjects
of her Aajesty who might be elected to this house. I call upon
the only bar, on the ground of religious
opinions, which you, then, to remove
still remains. I call upon you to remove it
• •
because you must be sensible that it was the influence of the
'Protestant dissenters in elections that enabled them to estab-
lish• •claim to the abolition of the Test
then and Corporation
Acts , • and that it was the formidable attitude of the Roman
Catholics in Ireland which induced you to remove the disabi-
lities which prevented them sitting in this house or occupying
office. If the Jews aro equally as trustworthy as any other part
of the people of her Majesty, I call upon you not to continue
an act of religious intolerance because they are few in number,
and have neither the political influence of the Protestant dis-
senters, or the formidable attitude which the Roman Catho-
lics assumed in 1821). I call upon you, therefore, to assent
to this measure on the ground of justice, and on the ground
of religious liberty. I call upon you to make the oath which
admits members to this house simple ; and to free it from
the charge of making odious distinctions between members of
different religions, and of endeavouring, as has INon done