The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-15 00:00:00

there were three classes of Christians admitted to that
House. The Protestant took the oath of supremacy and
the oath of abjuration. There were, however, a class
of persons known by the name of the Society of Friends,
who, in their affirmation, did not take that part of thu
oath of abjuration " on the true faith of a Christian,"
other words being substituted. The Roman Catholic
Members took an oath in which the words, "on the true
faith of a Christian," were also omitted. That oath was
framed under the Act of 1829, which admitted their
Roman Catholic countrymen into Parliament. Now
it was proposed that for the three
parties generally
there should be a simple form of oath. It was argued
that the oath now talcen did not apply to the present
time, and the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Vernon Smith) therefore proposed that there should be
a short declaration, which woull answer for Catholics
as well as for Protestants. Now he (Lord J. Russell)
thought it would not be wise to disturb an arrange-
ment which had been made in the Act of 1829,
and with which he believed the Roman Catholics
were content.—(Hear, hear.) With reference to the
oath proposed to be taken by members of the Jewish
persuasion in the present Bill, he had framed it in ac-
cordance with the suggestions of the Commissioners who
made their report to Lard Lyndhurst, then Lord Chan-
cellor, in May, 1845. With regard to the omission of
the words " on the true faith of a Christian," they were
not introduced into the oath taken by the Roman Ca-
tholics, nor in the affirmation made by the Society of
Friends.—( dear, hear.) With regard to the proposition
of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith), that there
should be one oath for all denominations, he would admit
that it would be very desirable that such an oath could
be framed, but he did not think the matter could be
easily accomplished. He thought it would not be ad-
visable, for instance, to interfere with the form of oath
taken by Roman Catholics as in the Act of 1829 the
oath was framed, and was made the foundation of the
settlement of the Catholic question.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN agreed that it would not be advis-
able to alter the Roman Catholic oath. As to the oath
proposed in the present Bill, the Noble Lord bad told
them that it was the form of oath which was framed by
the Commissioners in 1845
them why he had changed his mind since the introduc-
tion of the Bill of last year.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he
tb wutas
at a loss to attach any
the e oath by which they had not explained to
he
definite meaning to that part of
bound themselves to defend; o
the settlement of property within utmost of their power
by the laws. the realm as established

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he believed that the
words were introduced with reference to the Catholics,
and to certain offices which they filled in Ireland, and
they wero introduced on the ground of certain charges
made against them, that they wished to disturb, not only
religious property, but the settlement of civil property
also. The Hon. Member, however, would observe that
the words were "as established by law," whatever that
law might be, which the Legislature had the power to
alter as it might become necessary.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL quite agreed in the defini-
tion which the Noble Lord had given of the Catholic
oath. The doing away with all sorts of religious esta-
blishments he thought would be a benefit, although he
had not advocated such a proposition, nor did he mean
to do so.

Mr. ANSTEY said he attached very little importance
to these words, but if they were like the suggestion
of the Commissioners in the report, they ought to go
farther, and adopt the whole of the report of the Com.
missioners. He did not agree in the view taken in re-
spEct to the Church question by the Hon. Member for
Limerick. For himself he would say thathewouldnevetor
consent to the spoliation of a single shilling of Church
property.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. J. FOX said the absurdity of attempting
bind men's views by the imposition of oaths was
strongly illustrated by the contrary opinions expressed
on the subject of the Catholic oath by the Honourable
Member who spoke last. In passing, he must observe
that he thought the constituents of the Honourable and
Learned Member for Youghal would not be very well
satisfied with the course which that Honourable Gen-
tleman intended to pursue in respect to questions re-
lating to the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, ho contended that the whole of the Members of
that Home were entitled to vote upon all
questions—whether they related to the Church or not
—which came under their consideration. Was he,
because he was not a member of the Church, to be re-
strained from giving his vote upon a class of questions
which had relation to the Church? If he were so, be
would compromise the duty which he owed to his con-
stituents, all of whom—whether Churchmen or Dis-
senters—contributed to the support of the Church, and
were, therefore, entitled to have their opinions respecting
it given effect to in that House. He had no doubt the
oaths taken at the table were conscientiously subscribed
to; but what was their value, if the person taking them
did not feel the force of the words which they contained?
incormesepeteot by
o
bound in
qestions likely to come under the consideration of the
House. But he should be glad to know why they were
Iwtbiweabs
esearitdaitohpateritnieslBw29erea
tcoombepabcot
to be bound by a compact made years ago? Since
leaders had changed their previous opinions.—(Hear,
then new leaders had arisen in that House, and old
hear.) The evil of the matter was this—that the
ambiguities of the oath in question were such,
that it subjected many Honourable Members
to taunts which it was painful for them to endure, and
was equally painful to others to be auditors.—(Hear.)
This fact was in itself sufficient to warrant the House in
having the oath altered. Then with respect to the
wordy, "On the truth faith of a Christian," what did
they mean by them? They surely did not mean to im-
pose a particular creed on those who took the oath in
which these words ',appeared. Each person who took
gthioeuos belief
oath was
waswa tbrranetedin truthfa
assumingitbof a
tb at
Christian.his own
Therel
owaht
oh
bi necludethose l
ieyedd
tbe
le
aws
th . o
In
a believedcthe
country
try where
and those
retberewas
such a diversity of opinion on religious matters it was
the duty of the Legislature,
to check its growth, and
instead of fostering bigotry,
with this view he should vote
for the amendment.

Mr. ANSTEY, in explanation, said there was a per-
fect understanding between himself and his constituents
on the Church question. He had explained his views to
them, and they assented to them.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT would vote for the Bill now under con-
sideration, because it did not increase the number of
oaths, and because it was intended to let a class of his
fellow .subjects into that House, which he was anxious to
see as free as he was himself. If any stranger should
have entered the House the other evening, he would have
seen a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, and a member of the
sect to which he himself belonged, at the table, subscrib-
ing to three different forms of declaration; and he would
have supposed that these gentlemen represented classes
that were antagonistic to each other, and that they were
taking oaths against one another, when these forms were
meant with the view of sustaining institutions, which,
being worth preserving, did not require the aid of such
declarations to uphold them. He thought the amend-
ment would simplify the oath, and he should, therefore,
vote for it. He thought that all persons in that House
ought to have the power of voting upon every question
that came under their consideration. It was painful to
see from forty to sixty Members leave the House when
certain questions came before it. He was in favour of a
declaration, and he thought that a regard for truth would
be greater if the principle of taking oaths was given up.
He would vote for the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY wished an explanation of the words in
the oath.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the words
were intended to bind Roman Catholics in respect to 1
Church property.
Mr. HENLEY—I am speaking of the Protestant oath.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL said, these words were
originally introduced to apply particularly to Roman Ca-
tholics, and subsequently were made to applY
to alllo
Members generally.
Mr. DISRAELI said, the first time the expression,
" settlement of property," was used, was by the Prince of
Orange, and it had then a reference to Woburn Abbey.
—(Laughter.) That was a settlement which the Noble
Lord would not desire to alter. When they were called
upon to alter the oath, they ought to be precise in the
form of the terms. He hoped the Government would not
press the clause as originally constructed.
Mr. WOOD said he rejoiced that an oath should be
terms
abolished which had no definite meaning.
• Lord J. RUSSELL said that objections had been
taken
ot. the
oath, h
to all p parts of
ehad ad
the
pt
eli t
tl he
regarderm s
proposed to the
wording
et;ru but
eiaihtho
by the Commissioners, but, after what had been stated
in the House, he did not think it necessary to retain the
swordsa,y n owriet with regardson to
excludeto the authority
words,of,,
theon
the Pop
of a Christian."

Mr. WALPOLE said he thought they ought to con-
sider the objects for which the oath was imposed. First,
it was proposed as a test of allegiance; and, ,4econdly,
to define and explain as well as could be what that alle-
giance was. The first part of the oath was a declara-
tion of allegiance to the person of the monarch, and that
the Protestant religion should be maintained, and as the
country wished it should be maintained they ought not
to dispense with the religious sanction of the oath. This
was eif.cted by the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and
abjuration—the oath of allegiance to the person of the
monarch, of supremacy as a declaration of undivided
allegiance, and of abjuration as of allegiance to the fa-
mily of the Queen in succession.
Sir R. PEEL said he was glad the Noble Lord had
consented to the omission of these words. They were
introduced into the Acts for the first relaxation of the
laws against Roman Catholics. The settlement of pro-
perty had reference to the declaration in 1660, by Charles
11., which was restored by him, and which was after-
wards ratified by the Act of 1662. The Act of Settlement
ratified the royal declaration. The Catholics gave an
assurance that they acquiesced in that settlement. In
the Act of 1829 it was continued from the Acts of 1773
and 1775, and was to express the acquiescence of the
Roman Catholics of the settlement of property in Ire-
land in 1745, The main object now was to admit the
Jews to a participation of enlarged rights, and to ask
now for any declaration with regard to the settlement of
property in this country would be useless. He thought
the Noble Lord had acted wisely in omitting the words
which referred to the Pope. The object was to admit
the Jews, and ho would advise them with that view not
to be too critical as to the terms, but to regard the great
object they had in, view, Ns hich was to admit to civil
rights a highly respectable mass of persons.
Mr. S'PENVAR 1' said he considered there was great
force in the observations of the Member for Midhurst.
All the words proposed he admitted would apply to the
subject. of education, which was spiritual, civil, and ec-
clesiastic, as exemplified in the interference of the Pope
with regard to au Act passed by that House. lie con-
tended that even before the Reformation the common
law of England excluded the spiritual supremacy of the
Pope, and he wished to know from the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, or the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, whether that law would
be considered still in existence?