The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-02 00:00:00

it would be far from deciding this question ; the great point
was, whether these persons had, as the petitioners stated,
violated their sworn engagements ? Now, in order to
see whether they had, the first thing necessary would
be to ascertain what their sworn engagements were,
to look at: the oath, and also to look at what must
be considered as the fair interpretation of that oath. He
did not like very much to fatigue their Lordships with
reading the oath at full ; he thought he need not do more
than refer to it generally. By that oath the Catholic dis-
claimed, disavowed, and abjured any intention to subvert the
Protestant Church, or to exercise any privilege he possessed
to the detriment of the Protestant religion. Now, in order to
come to the real meaning of those words, he did not think that
much argument was necessary. The intentions of parties
were not to be taken into account in administering the oath ;
but what was to be considered was, what the parties
did ; and contemporaneous history or acts, or the words of
the Legislature itself, might be referred t" Now, for that
purpose he would request the attention of their Lordships
while the Clerk at the table read certain extracts from the
Speech his Majesty George the Fourth was pleased to com-
mand the Lords Commissioners to deliver in the year 1829.
The speech and the addresss in answer to it having been read
by the clerk, the Right Reverend Prelate proceeded to say
that he felt he was not going too far in saying that when
they considered the very solemn communication which
passed between his late Majesty, King George the
Fourth, and this House—and, indeed, he might add, the
other House, for he believed the Address sent up by the
Commons was as'usua an echo to the Speech—and when they
saw the pointed manner in which his Majesty referred to the
oath by which he felt himself bound to maintain the
rights of the Established Church and of its Bishops and
Clergy, and when they recollected the nature of the answer
which they bad returned to that speech—they must
feel that it amounted to no less than a soleren com-
pact between this House and the Sovereign, that they
should preserve those rights inviolate. For the security
given in return for that boon they should look to the
construction which was to be placed on the speech itself,
by which it was manifest that it was intended by
his Majesty that they should guard against these dangers.
It did not seem, however, that this was considered by
all,mcn as the right mode of interpreting it. A Learned Mem-
ber in the other House of Parliament said that he felt himself
at liberty, as a Protestant, to deal with:the whole question of
this oath, according to the construction put upon it by the
House of Commons, and that was to be taken from the failure of
Mr. W. Horton's motion for the exclusion of Roman Catholics
from Parliament, should they attempt to vote on any matter
affecting the rights of the Established Church. That was
not the ground on which that motion was refused—it was a very
wild motion, and, in his opinion, the other House of Par-
liament acted very wisely in refusing it. It was said
on that occasion, that if we were afraid of the hostility
of the Catholics to the Protestant Church, then they
must he kept out of Parliament ; and if they were ad-
mitted, they must be bound so as to render them harm-
less.—(llear, hear.) In several publications another no-
tion was broached—that the oath was not to affect Members of
either House of Parliament in their legislative capacity. That
notion was first broached by a very honourable man, the bro-
ther of a Noble Lord, the Hon. Mr. Langdale, and was sub-
sequently assented to by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin. They said they were bound as well as the Protestants to
uphold the establishment so long as the law remained in its then
present state ; but as a Legislator, he was perfectly free to do
what he pleased for amending it, the great boon—the only
object of the Catholic party for a long time—was to get into
Parliament, and, therefore, it was extraordinory that the se-
curity that was to be taken was not to apply to them in their
legislative capacity. It was singular if it should not so apply ;
the Legislasure had fixed it in the commencement of the Act.
He did not think it necessary to waste their Lordship? time
further in urging that point, but it had been assimilated to
a declaration which was usually made on taking office.
That he believed was also a notion of Mr. Langdale,
who put it upon a par with the obligation of all Ministers on
taking office not to use the influence arising from their office
to weaken the Established Church ; but the Honourable Gen
tleman did not advert to one peculiarity in the case, which
was, that when he was urging on a question destructive
or injurious to the Established Church in Ireland, the de-
claration to which he referred had a special limitation.
The declaration, so far as it went, only bound him to pre-
serve the Church, so far as it was established in England.
He did not contend that they were specially bound by peculiar
tenderness for the Church of Ireland. Their Lordships would
see, that it was very possible for Honourable Members who
meant to discharge their duty both to the Church and to the
S ate to have a very different view of that which might be in
accordance with their oaths. A Noble Viscount, who was a
Member of the other House of Barliamont for the County of
Northampton, and also a Member of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, whom he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew to be a
sincere Christian and a good Churchman—and be said that
with great sincerity—that Noble Lord had bound himself to
do nothing to injure the Church as now established in Eng-
land; and so far as that declaration went it was not in-
ccohnosirsetieknti;fl blurt, l
alined co
at d earne di
otshoal
tt
ttoh e
tlicex i s tlerni
seiei
poefo
ptlhee.
Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) would have thought that the
Noble Lord must have felt himself restricted from doing so,
and that he could not consider himself quite at liberty to use
the influence of the high office which he held as a member of
her Majesty's Government for the advancement of that object.
He, therefore, must say, he thought that declaration had as
little to do with the Church of Ireland as they could . well
conceive any thing to have.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He
was, indeed, very happy to say, that while some
Roman Catholics had been eager, apparently eager, and
certainly they bad acted as if they were erect'--.'o find
some mode of getting out of the meshes of this oath—
there were others who had shown a very honourable
readiness to adhere to their engagement?, and to sty
within the limitations of the Act of Parliament and of the
cith they had taken. He might mention in an especial
manner a Noble Lord, then a Member of the other House,
now an ornament of their Lordship? House—and as he
was not present, he would mention his name, the Earl of
Fingal—tie had declared that he had no, these loose
notions of the oath be lied taken, and that he considered him-
.elf bound not to do anything that might impair or injure
the Church in Ireland. That Noble Lord had shewn his
sincerity in that, by doing what he must have known
would have hazarded his return to his seat in Parliament
at a new election, and the consequence was, that ho lost his
election. He was rejected by the county of Kildare (several
Noble Lords, " Meath, Meath.") Whatever county it was, he
hazarded it with his eyes open.
A NOBLE. Loan here rose and made a few observations
which were inaudible in the gallarv.
The Bishop of EXETER would not argue after what had
been stated, as if that Noble Lord was a martyr to his
oath. Mr. Rielly declared similar sentiments —he
was not a martyr, but he also lost his seat after
making that declaration. Whether any other Roman Catholic
Irish Members were equally ready to make the declaration, and
suffer the consequences, he did not know ; but be rejoiced to
say they had an instance of an English Member who did so—
he meant the Honourable Mr. Petre—that gentleman made
a similar declaration, and he stated that nothing would induce
him to act upon the interpretation of the oath which had
been nut upon it by some gentlemen. It was not for him, an
humble individual as he was, to say that that was the only
interpretation those words would bear; but it was his
duty in presenting petitions on this subject, to declare his.
opinion of what the right interpretation of the oath was.
I disclaim any intention to subvert the present
Church Establishment, as settled by law, within these
realms." He (the Bishop of Exeter) thought that in point of
fact this oath prevented any conscientious man who had an
intention of subverting Church Establishments from qualify-
ing himself fur a scat in Parliament by taking that
oath. That was what he meant. As to the next pas-
sage in the oath, " I do solemnly swear that I will
never exercise any privilege to which I may be en-
titled to disturb the Protestant Church and Protestant
religion as established by law. ' He (the Bishop of
Exeter) did not hold that Roman Catholic Members
were compelled by this to leave the House when any
question regarding the Protestant religion in this country was
brought forward ; they are there as legislators assembled
under a writ of summons which calls upon them to
advise their Sovereign upon certain important matters touch-
ing her Royal person and Government. It would be too much
to say that parties having such a writ of summons should be
precluded from advising her Majesty upon one portion of
public affairs. But he held there was a restraint put on them
not put upon Protestant Members. The oath administered
to the Roman Catholic Members was, that they should not
use any privilege they possessed—and this could only refer to
their Parliamentary privilege, for other privileges were men-
tioned afterwards—to disturb the Protestant religion or Pro-
testant Government. Now ho wee happy to say that he could
produce satisfactory testimony from a conscientious Roman
Catholic Gentleman as to the obligation of this oath. He
would read a passage from a letter which had been published
by Mr. Waterton, dated Wakefield, the 6th of March,
l 535, and which was in the following terms :—" The Catholic
Relief Bill did nothing for me. I can neither be a Member
of Parliament, nor a Magistrate; for no power on earth
shall induce me to take Peel's oath, if I understand an
oath, and I ought to do, for 1 have been mall). years with the
Jesuits." He (the Bishop of Exeter) begged to remark this,
for the Jesuits appeared to have taught this gentleman the
right interpretation at least, though they had not been so
successful in others.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) "If I
understand an oath, I consider that thisioath prevents me from
doing anything to subvert the present Church Establishment.
Now I will do everything in my power fairly and honourably
as a gentleman to upset that Church as by law established."—
( Hear, and laughter.) Thiz was a very fair avowal on the part of
that gentleman, and he, the Right Rev. Prelate very much
applauded him for his candour. He was sorry some mode of in-
ducing this gentleman to take the oath had not been devised,
because in that case he was sure he would not have endeavoured
to upset the Church. Probably the Noble Baron, the Secretary
for the Colonies, would be able to give the House
some information on the point he was about to state.
He had heard that a Roman Catholic of very high func-
tion!, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta, was nominated
to be of his late Majesty's Council in that island, and
was required to take the oath under the Act for repealing
the Roman Catholic disabiilities, and that that Gentleman,
very much to his credit, said lie would not take that oath, in
consequence of which he was not admitted to be a Member of
the Council. This statement he had from a person of very
high respectability, and if the fact was otherwise, the No-
ble Baron would most probably be able to tell the House.
Lord G L ENE LG said there was a question of that sort,
but that he was not able to say what oath it related to.
The Bishop of EXETER was much obliged to the Noble
Baron. h seemed, therefore, that there had been some

discussion about some oath, and this gentleman was
a Roman Catholic. He (the Right Rev. Prelate) was sorry
it had not occurred to him earlier, because then he could
have given the Noble Baron notice that he would have
asked the question, when in all probability be would
have been able to have answered it in positive terms.
lie would, however, venture to think it very likely that it was
this oath.
Lord GLE NE LG—No, no—that was not to be assumed.
The Bishop of EXETER—There was a discussion about
some oath—what oath could it be if it was not this oath? No
doubt the Noble Baron would prepare himself, because he
must have means to inform the House what oath it was. If he
did not, he (the Right Rev. Prelate) would take upon him-
self to conclude that it must have been this very oath.
Lord G L ENE L G most assuredly could not tell just now.
Lord ABE RDE EN knew that it was this oath.
The Bishop of EXETER then had the authority of
the late Secretary for the Colonies, that it was the
late Bishop of Malta who declined to qualify him-
self for a very high office, because the qualification was
by taking an oath, which would prevent him from
doing that as a Roman Catholic, which he (the Right
Rev. Prelate) believed it was his intention to do—namely,
tos upset the Established Church, and to weaken
the Protestant Religion, which," without violating the oath,
this oath, he could not do. He chose, therefore, rather to
forego the office than to violate the oath tendered to him
upon that occasion ; and these were men which he
(the Right Rev. Prelate) sincerely honoured.—( Hear.)
In the course of the discussion of this oath, another person has
put another construction on the word " Establishment" than
that which was usually ascribed to it. Mr. O'Connell
was reported in Hansard, March 11, 1834, to have spoken
to this effect. He contended that under this clause
all that the Roman Catholics were made to swear
was, that " they would not subvert the Established
Church." He would not charge that Mr. O'Connel
used the phrase, for, in a nice balancing of words be should
feel some hesitation before putting words into a person's
mouth. There was a considerable difference between the
words " Established Church, " and the " present Church
Establishment." The Church Establishment could only mean
those rights, possessions, privileges of all kinds, which the
State took care the Church should possess, whether by ori-
ginal endowment from others, or donations from itself. If the
word " Establishment" had any meaning, it must be con-
sidered as securing to the parties all their endowments.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) And here again he would refer to
the words of George the Fourth, submitted to Parliament.
He then proceeded. There were two Churches in Ireland—
one established by law, the other by the people. Would the
Protestants be less an Established Church it deprived of their
temporalities? To be sure they would ;it would cease to be an
Establishment, but it would not cease to be a Church—that
was beyond. the reach of mortal laws to effect. Estab-
lishment meant, and could only be understood to mean,
the rights and endowments, of the Church protected
by the law. This he hold to be the duty imposed upon the
Roman Catholics—these were the sworn engagements en-
tered into, and those engagements it was that the pe-
titioners stated to hare been violated.—( Hear, hear.) They
were here met in linuni by an objection in the nature of a
question which was—what was it that kept the Roman Catho-
lies so long out of Parliament ? Why, their adherence, it was
induce
them to their oaths—an adherence which nothing could
them to violate. lie admitted that at the first appearance,
there was much in that argument.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The oath required from Roeten Catholics had long been
a matter of complaint. They complained that it was
not an oath merely binding them not to injure or subvert
the institutions of the State as by law established, but
that it violated one of the principal dogmas of their
faith. They said that that obnoxious oath was proposed to
them because they were esteemed enemies of the Church, and
asked what was the utility of putting it, if they gave security
not to interfere with the Church Establishment ? Now he felt
that there was much in that argument, but still he did not
think it conclusive. What was the history of the necessity
which required Catholics to take an oath abjuring transubstan-
tiation? It was this, they were found not to have adhered to their
other engagements. A learned and pious ecclesiastic, named
Father Walsh, who wrote, in 1664, what he termed " A Re-
monstrance to the Roman Catholics of England, Ireland, and
Scotland," gave us his reasons for objecting to the oath.
He had said that he thought the Roman Catholic oath had
been broken, and it would be affectation in him to affect to be
ignorant that a good deal had been observed upon his opinion.
He would, putting eside opinions of the petitioners, take leave to
argue the case upon his own view of it. It was not an im-
pertinent wasting of their Lordships' time, inasmuch as they
would find in the votes of the proceedings of the other
House, which were communicated by the courtesy of that
House to their Lordships, on Monday, the 26th of February,
the following notice, " That in case the notice of Lord
Maidstone be brought forward and entertained by the
House, Lord Jelin Russell to call the attention of the
House to the charge of perjury brought by the Bishop
of Exeter against certain Members of this House."
He had not been able to see, in any subsequent statement of
the notices and proceedings of that House, any further
allusion to it, and it did not appear, although Lord
Maidstone proceeded, and the Houso entertained his
motion, that the Noble Lord had proceeded with
his motion. Ile hoped be mighthave their Lordships' indulgence
if he ventured to read for them a portion of the charge which
the Noble Lord had intended, and for aught he knew,
intends to bring before the House of Commons—( Hear)
—especially as he (the Bishop of Exeter) could not
be there to defend himself, and as their Lordships could
not be there to hear the charge and his defence.
In 1826, at his triennial visitation lie had addressed the
Clergy of his diocese, and in the course of it he addressed the
clergy at great length upon matters affecting the religion
of the country. He would now read to their Lordships the
passage in his charge which had occasioned so much animad-
version. It was as follows :—" On th's Bill I shall he brief ;
but I cannot but congratulate you, on higher grounds than
sympathy with your distressed and excellent brethren, the
clergy of that country, that the cause of true religion has nut
been there abandoned; that those moderate funds (for such they
have been proved to be) which the piety and wisdom of former
ages have provided for the maintenance, and the extension, of
a pure faith throughout Ireland, have not become the prey
of a perfidious fection, whieh could not have acquired the
powers of mischief, which, unhappily, they possess and exer-
cise, but by entering into engagements, and binding them-
selves by pledges, which Englishmen and Protestants would
deem it impossible for any who call themselves Christians to
dare to violate. In the discussion of the measure in Parlia-
ment, I felt it my duty to rest my resistance to it on this point
—to denounce as treachery, aggravated by perjury, such an
exercise of rights, acquired under an oath not to weaken or
disturb the Protestant religion.' In truth, when we call to
mind the soleinn and oft-repeated protestations made by the
Roman Catholics and by their friends for them—of the sense
in which they took that oath, and of the awful' obligation im-
posed by it upon their conscience--and then advert to the cer-
tein consequences of the proposed Bill (if it had passed), as
avowed by its chief adviser—that it would prove a serious dis-
couragement, a heavy blow to the Protestant religion, and a
triumph to its enemies ; but that it was a measure which the
augmented force of the Roman Catholics, and their unrniti-
gable hostility to that religion, had rendered necessary :
when we call to mind that such was the nature of the measure,
such the argument by which it-was enforced, I know not in
chat milder terms the indignation of an honest mind can be
expressed than by characterising the conduct of those who de-
manded it as treachery, aggravated by perjury." His object
unquestionably was to show that the Roman Catholics were
exercising the power which they had acquired for purposes
which they heal pledged themselves not to seek. The
Noble Lord who had given notice of a motion in the other
House talked of his (the Bishop of Exeter) having brought
" a charge against Members of this House" (the House
of Commons). Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would
not avail himself of the technical objection, that what
he stated in 1836 could not possibly be said to have
reference to the present House of Commons. Indeed, he
should be ashamed of himself if ho did not distinctly declare
that in that charge he did alludo to some Hon. Gentlemen
who were also Members of the present House of Commons.
But why did the Noble Lord state that his (the Bishop of
Exeter's) charge was directed against Members of the House
of Commons? Why not also against Members of their Lord-
ships' House? To whom did he (the Bishop of Exeter)
allude in that charge of his ? lie alluded to the agitators in
Ireland who endeavoured to subvert the Protestant Establish-
ment. There were some agitators, however, who were not in
Parliament. There was Dr. M' Hale, a member of the Ca-
tholic Association. There was Dr. Murray, who supported
Mr. O'Connell on the occasion of his eernint,s forward and
carrying on a crusade against tithes. On that occasion Dr.
Murray sent Mr. O'Connell 101. to aid and comfort him in
his exhibition. It had been distinctly declared that the object
of the General Association in Ireland was to effect the entire
abolition of tithes in that country. So it was understood
by Dr. Murray, and
so h e believed it was understood by
every Catholic bishop in Ireland. He begged their
Lordships' attention to the following quotation from
Mr. O'Connell's last address to the electors of Kilkenny :
" I heartily supported the Ministry of Lord Melbourne in their
new measure of tithe relief, not as giving all I wanted for the
people of Ireland, but as giving us a part, and establishing an
appropriation principle, which would necessarily produce much
more. Nothing, however, can be so absurd as the allegation
of its finality. That Bill, had it passed into a law, was equally
capable
of being altered or repealed that session; that is, in
the session in which it should hare been passed. I, therefore,
who am for the total abolition of tithes, voted for the abolition
in the.first instance, of part only." What also were the reso-
lutions moved by Mr. O'Connell at the meeting of the General
Association in Dublin on the 19th of January, 1835 ? The
Rev. Prelate then proceeded to read the resolutions in question.
There was another Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Mem-
ber for Tipperary, who was reported to have said in the House
of Commons, on the. 23d of July, 1835 :—" Abandoning. all
metaphysical disquisitions, I proceed, not to a conside-
ration of mere expediency, but of paramount and dire
necessity ; and I lay down a very plain proposition, and
it is this—(l do not mean it to be offensive, but however
harsh the truth, it must be told)—it is this—whatever
may be your inclination, you have- not the ability to main-
tain the Irish Establishment. Why ? Because the power
of the Irish people has risen to such a pitch, that to
the mistaken interests of an impuissant minority the rights,
undoubted although not undisputed, of the enormous majority
For .
cannot any longer with impunity be sacrificed. what are
all these risks to be incurred?—for what are all these ap-
palling hazards to be run?—for what stake is till; awful die to
be cast ?—for what into all these affrighting perils are ee to
rush ? For what into all these terrific possibilities (for likeli-
hoods I will not call them) are we madly,. desperately, impi-
ously to plunge?" Now, that could be interpreted only by
the understanding that the Protestant religion was contrary to

the true religion, and that it was impious to support that re-
ligion which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had
nevertheless sworn that he would support. He (h? Bishop
of Exeter) had no hesitation in declaring it to be his perfect
conviction, a conviction as sincere as any which ho had ever
entertained upon any subject in the course of his life, that any
individual having taken the oath prescribed to a Roman
Catholic Member of Porliament, who afterwards uttered
1 such words, or anything like such words, as those which he
I had read from the reported speech of the Honourable and
Learned Member for Tipperary, had grossly departed
ell
from the obligations which the oath imposed upon
him. This declaration was rendered indispensable by the
course pursued with respect to himself (the Bishop of Exeter).
He bad no alternative but either to submit to the imputation
of having made an unfounded charge, or to show that hie
charge was a well-founded one. There was another remark
which he wished to make. The Irish Catholic Association,
in their address to the people of England this year, stated,
" Far from meditating the overthrow or destruction of the
Protestant Government and Protestant Establishment of the
empire, we are ready to swear, as we already do swear, to sup-
port,
&c." But what did the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tlemen the Members for Dublin and Tipperary do in their ca-
pacity of Legislators ? They had sworn to do nothing to
subvert or injure the Protestant Establishment, yet they did
every thing in their power to subvert or injure it. The con-
tradiction between their declaration and their acts was I repos-
terous. He alluded to the following passages in a speech ad-
dressed by the lion. and Learned Member for Tipperary to his
constituents in October, 1835 :—" Our eyes were opened, and
while we became conscious of the fatal results of our dis-
cussion with the Whigs, we determined to repair the evil,
and never again to fall alto a similar error. Accordingly we
entered with them into a close alliance, and at the meeting
at Lord Lichfield's formed that compact, and, I trust,
indissoluble junction, by which so much has been effected."
" The complete union of the popular party, of which the meet-
ing at Lichfield-house were the foundation, is indispensable
for the maintenance of the Administration, and therefore, for
the good of the empire." " At these meetings what souse was
taken by Mr. O'Connell? The most moderate, the most prac-
tical, and that which led to the most successful issue. There it ,
was that the course of proceeding was devised which broke up
the Government of Sir Robert Peel. What a glorious and at
the same time what an incalculably serviceable circumstance it
was, that by a resolution on the Irish Church, and the great
principle of secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property, we
should have annihilated the Tories!" Let their Lordships
mark the commencement, only the commencement of the
policy, by which it was desired Ireland should for the future
be governed. But did he say that statement was absolutely
correct? No I but it rested upon the authority of a re-
port of a speech which had spread throughout the country.
It had been observed by a Noble and Learned Lord, whom he i
was glad to see in his place, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, _
whose displeasure had been excited by his observations, that •
he had not only charged some with perjury, but others with
subornation of perjury. Now, with regard to that, he could
have no hesitation in saying that any person who was privy to
the commission of perjury, and either employed it as an instru-
ment for his own purposes, or even neglected to expose it, was
guilty hourly of subornation of perjury. That was the opinion
which he conscientiously entertained, and in his character of a
Bishop had no hesitation to avow. He had, however, been told,
upon high authority—that of the Noble and Learned Lord
the Chancellor of Ireland—that he could be impeached for
it. The Noble and Learned Lord had, in his place in Par-
liament, alluded to the charge, and said it was impeachable.
Upon that occasion he had done all which, by the rules of ,
the House, he was enabled to do, and he had ventured to cry
out " Impeach," he hoped not in an offensive manner, but by'
way of a quiet defiance, which the circumstances called upon
him to give. That impeachment had not taken place any
more than the motion of the Noble Lord in the other House.
But these were not the only instances in which his conduct
had been censured. The Attorney-General in the last Para
liament was reported to have said something which had greatlk
su prised him—in a speech on the Church rate Bill, on the
14th of March, 1837, when he declared that the Bishop of
Exe er, in his charge, had been guilty of the greatest libel,
and if ever he filed a criminal information against any one, it
should be against the Bishop of Exeter. But subsequently
lie was reported to have said another thing, which eras ill
still more surprising, and upon which he had thought it neeee-
sary to collate the reports, he found them confirming each
other ; and upon that occasion the Attorney-General was sur,
„.
posed to have said ;_n That he had recently read a Nisi-
tation charge of the Bishop of Exeter, in which the Rig
Rev. Prelate stated that he (the Attorney- General) had been„
most remiss in not prosecuting certain libellous publications.
That was the especial ground upon which it was declared t0a...„,
have been most indecent and indecorous in him to have eon .",
mcnted upon the delay in the prosecution of that libel. New.
he could assure their Lordships that he had, notwithstandinre
eg
the unpleasant nature of the task, read that charge over thee .
times, with a view to find out any foundation for that overstate-
times, scant,
mcnt. But he had been unable to discover—not a sentime
or the entire language—but even a scintilla of evidence, nYeTI
1,.
which any honest man could place such a construction.. :‘`,'
was his intention, on the first night after the accusation 5;
been made, to come down to the House, but he found it
did
not sit, and on the next occasion a friend to whom lie men.-
tinned it said that the individual had received such a smashing
from Lord Stanley, that it would be cruel to inflict anything
in addition. --(Cheers.) But he (the Bishop of Exeter) re-
plied, '` Perhaps the poor man is dumb."—( A laugh.) He
could not help feeling it in the highest degree inconsistent
that two individuals who occupicd such high stations as the mi
Secretary of State for the Home Deportment and the principal Ani
Law Adviser of the Crown should not have followed up such
a grave charge against bins. If he had no regard to the se-
verer duties of his office, which would, in common justice, re-
quire that he should make good his accusation, he (the se-
Bishop
of Exeter) hoped that he (Lord John Russell) had some
friend i‘s that House that would tell him that he (the 13ishoi:
of Exeter) trusted in his honour, in his generosity, to cored
forward and sustain his charge.—( Cheers.) He now 043° ,
that the Noble Lord would at once come forward in an
o e
p:r
decided manner, so that he might meet him face to facc,
else that he would be silent on the subject for ever,
Vicount MELBOURNE was sure that the Noble Lord the. 111
Secretary for the Home Department had no other motive ,tna
bringing forward the matter on that occasion than to show
iittrwe .1
exceeding inconvenience that must arise from the indulge/3.)
of accusations and recriminations of this nature.—( A latt„g,abt
The thing originated in a breach of privilege, and the ;via
Reverend Prelate seemed to think so himself.
Bishop of EXETER—No, no.
Viscount MELBOURNE thought if the Right Revererili
Prelate read his charge again, he must say that it costa tin ,ail
a very strong passage for him to deliver on such an occasioct .11
strong respecting the individuals reflected on, and strove
respecting the persons to whom it was delivered ; and wll°' 0
instead of bring impelled. to greater political violence, !'0,.."
quired rather to ho rest.a'aed from the inlul,gence to
they had already been accustomed. However, he `vat
of opinion that it would have been better if it had e"
been taken any notice of, as he now thought that anY fe.r:
ther prosecution would be injudicious : yet he could prem,l_;
the Right Reverend Prelate that he would deliver
."'r
44
message to his Noble Friend, and that he should eitete...
hear no more of the charge, or that it should be inves,,l..
gated to his satisfaction. As to the meeting at Lichficlil_
orii
wlito;
house, so often alluded to, it was a meeting to settle I..it
questions of reform, and of the administration to accomplish
it, but not to settle anything else. As such it might
slate;
4111
been entitled to his animadversion ; but if lie meant to
that it was intended to settle anything there for the giving g
the Irish Church, then he stated what was not the fact.
the
had never approved of the Roman Catholic oath, though t-
a
Right Reverend Prelate did ; and it was found at the end then-
all all the securities of oaths were unavailing, embarrassing sonlle -
i
alarming others, evaded by those whose nice consciences fe '
them inapplicable, repugnant to most, and an insult to .all.
( Hear, limn ) If once the Protestant State were in grey
danger, oaths would afford no security ; for at the Refortna;
tion all the dignitaries and officials of Parliament, civil 0'
military, from the Lord Chancellor to the constable, Were
sworn, by command of Henry VIII., to oppose the new &ea_ , ,
trines. Even Lord Cromwell, and the great authorities Or
the Reformation, were sworn to oppose the very opinions whie
they were the great advocates of.—( Hear, hear.) How uscl
less, then, was this oath ! But suppose it really viol
about
How did the Bishop of Exeter mean to act ? Was he afr ama
to take away their privileges, or did hr propose to ...a
other oaths more strict ? He must feel convinced that it
go ao:
to the good feeling, honour, and patriotism of the Irish tha
man Catholics that he must trust alone, and not to anY 138,0
that he could devise. He must say, in conclusion, that hof
not think it any violation of his oath for any Roman 11'
Member to vote on the subject of Irish ecclesiastical reform
r;g
The Bishop of LL AND AFF could not help exPressilued
his surprise at the manner in which the Noble Viicount
had
commented on the violation of their oaths by these
entered into solemn engagements te observe them. It sect,
to be the ground of much of the declamation which woe.;
heard on this subject, that to make the charge of perjury
that
as grave an offence as to commit the crime. He knew • t
ins_
perjury was a serious charge, and ought not to be made aga'v ,
any man without proof ; but, as a general principle, he erne
shrunk from professing the same opinions as those &liv
by the Right Rev. Prelate with reference to the conduct e
certain Roman Catholics. who :St
The Marquis of CLAN RIC ARD E maintained that if
Right Reverend Prelate believed that perjury and subonatt°o.
of perjury existed, he ought to attempt the remedy of Suchet to
state of things. He thought a declaration of faith tang— f
be altogether omitted. It was very insulting to Member4_
the Roman Catholic persuasion, and it was repugnant to. hh;
own feelings, however strong his belief in the doctrine
that
be, that he, for instance, should be called upon to swear t
the mass was an idolatrous ceremony. He should be 51,115°
ready to give his assistance to the Right Rev. Prelate ferh'ief
purpose of introducing some rneasure to the miscef. a
of the present system, instead of allowing the Membersis,_..
Legislature to be controlled by an authority to whose jur 11
the
tioe they were not subject ; for it was the undoubted inten titan._
1 of the Legislature, and the rule of Parliament, that
eit!
1 Members should be left to the exercise of their unfettered
judgments.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY agreed with the Noble brought
b t
Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) that any measure roug
forward by the Government was with a view to support
religious institutions of the country as established by law ; in-
if if he had any scruple in giving his sanction to measures.
cad
traduced with the approval of the Crown, which was the h
__
of the Church in these countries, it was because he felt he wet
thereby aiding and abetting the improvement and stability
institutions institutions in the truth and utility of which he did not ,
lieve. It was most unjust to impute to those who followed
their judgment evil intentions, when they only discharged
their duty in the exercise of their constitutioaal rights.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that the imputation of