The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-24 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY

past, in favour of the admission of Jews into Parliament.
However, when they were taking the subject into their
consideration, and especially the recommendation of the
Committee on " Oaths," he thought it would not be out
of place if the attention of the House was directed
to the nature of the oaths which were taken by
the members of different religious persuasions
at the table. Instead of merely dealing with one par-
ticular oath, with a view to the admission into that
House of the Member of a particular sect, he thought, in-
stead of " chopping and, altering," that the wiser course
would be to have but one form, and that an exceedingly
simple one, as he entertained much objection to a
multiplicity of oaths. He thought, therefore, that
the House would agree with him that if they
could simplify the oaths taken by a Member
on taking his seat, they would be performing a good
public work and elevating. the character of that House.
—(Hear.) He did not wish to throw any stigma upon
the proceedings of the House, but he confessed
when he heard Honourable Members talk of
the solemnity of the oath taken by Members,
that he could not agree with them. He entertained an
entirely contrary opinion. The hurrying of Members to
the table at the beginning of a new Parliament to take
the oaths, whilst Members around were talking upon
different subjects, was not to his mind a solemn proceed-
ing, and he did not think those who took a part in it or
beheld it were impressed with a conviction that it was
so. It was no argument' against simplifying their
oaths to say, that because they were settled in the year
1829, and that twenty years had since elapsed, it was
not now expedient to remodt I them. Though he had not
spoken to any member of the Roman Catholic faith
with respect to the oaths which they were called upon
to take, he thought he was correct when he said that
tke oath was not only objectionable to the members of
that faith, but not of a nature to elevate the cha-
racter of that House. The Roman Catholic Member
merely subscribed to the oath which had been
prepared, leaving him at liberty to interpret it
as he pleased. When the oath was proposed
in 1829, by Sir Robert Peel, very little was said in sup-
port of it. Indeed, Chief Justice Bustle said that "no
danger could result from it, and certainly no security."
If it did not exclude members of that faith
from taking part in all. debates, he confessed
ho did not see the necessity of retaining it. If that oath
was not dangerous, and yet was productive of no
security, he thought they might safely expunge it from
the statute-book. The oaths of supremacy, abjuration,
and sucession were unnecessary at a time when no one
doubted the right of succession, and with
respect to the oath of allegiance great disparity
existed between that taken by a Protestant and a
Roman Catholic—the one said "on the true faith
of a Christian," whilst the other swore "he would
do no injury to the Established Church."
It was just as likely to be injured by those persons who
wished to support the State as by those rho, professing
another religion, might not be so hostile to the, esta-
blishment as Protestant Dissenters. He totally differed
from the Honourable Member for the University
of Oxford on the high stand he had taken in advocating
the retention of those words, " on the true faith of a
Christian." He (Mr. Vernon Smith) must say, when
members of the different sects of Christianity met
at the table of the House and said they took the
eAth en " the tree feith of a Christian."
he could not -7 !V7.;J4t WILS went ii.e the westi of'64-e,"
b-eee-,e tile ;ins l?itli 0.: I CiltiA 'n !iri.:o're, e eid,ly
seneriseCaiietisus, :ti in,kuyiu.;_l3.ne, 34. i, did itl AS :".:-,I tZ:
Of a Jew ; Lad,; therefore, he ehcald object to the woule
on " the true faith of a Christian," particularly because
these words being so inserted, and so adapted, would
lead to a result which he wished particularly to avoid.
His Noble Friend said there were three different oaths
to be taken by Members professing three different reli-
gions. There was one taken by the Protestant, aed
that was to be taken by the Jew too; but when
the Jew came to the words on "the true faith of a
Christian," there he was to stop and these words were to
be omitted. Well, now he (Mr. V. Smith) said such a
proceeding as that was very unbecoming of that House,
and it ought to be put a atop to. The next oath was that
which was to be taken by the Roman Catholic Members,
and that oath was entirely different both from that taken
by the Protestant and that taken by the Jew. The Roman
Catholic was not called on to take the oath on " the
true faith of a Christian." He (Ur V. Smith) should
like to know why ? Now, he thought it a most un-
seemly thing that Members coming up to the table of
that House should be asked what was their particular
religion before they were permitted to take the
oath at the table of the House. Ile
thought the House would agree with him in
thinking that all that was contained in the oath of su-
premacy and the oath of abjuration was embodied in the
oath of allegiance, which could not be more simple than
it was ; and therefore he thought that the House should
adopt the oath of allegiange. 'lt was with those objections
that they were bound to, consider the question of the
oath as tributary to the Jews in their present disabili-
ties, that he had thought it right as a Member of that
House to state the way in which those
objections could be achieved in the simplest
possible manner, and one most in accordance
with the feelings of the public, and of the majority of the
Members of that House. He begged leave, under those
circumstances, to propose the amendment which he had
read.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think there was any
sufficient cauie to be dissatisfied with the oath. He
thought the oath was a security, and he should, there-
fore, oppose the amendment of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. HUME said the great object to be attained ap-
peared to him, in every transaction, that they had to re-
duce as much as possible unnecessary oaths. By
the Duke of Richmond's Bill there had
been twenty millions avoided.—(Cries of " Hear.")
Since then twenty millions more had been abolished,
and he was not aware that the slightest dishonesty had
ever been discovered in consequence.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it — 72

Mr. BANKES had given notice of an amendment, but
the proper time for proposing it was when they got
into Committee on the Bill. He wished therefore not to
be precluded from moving it on the Bill if he abstained
from moving it then. He had no objection to an altera-
tion of the oaths, but he certainly should object to any
proposal for conferring upon Jews the right of sitting in
the House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was glad that the
Hon. Member intended to reserve his amendment to the
Bill before the House. The Hon. Gentleman surely could
not think that there was any danger of Jews subverting
or overturning the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)
What he understoood him to say was this—that
he wished the words promising not to subvert
the Established Church should be introduced into the
oath taken generally by Members. Now that was a very
different question, and instead of being the terms of an
admission, they were the terms of a restriction.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Lord John Russell) would object to the
words being introduced with regard to Jews, or to any
other class except Roman Catholics.
Mr. GOULBURN could not conceive that the intro-
duction of the words would have a prejudicial effect upon
any class of persons.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said a most important point was
to be decided by the House, viz., whether Catholic Mem-
bars stood in the same position and with the same full
powers as other Hen. Members in that House. Did
they stand there with as full powers and privileges as
the Protestant Dissenters, or were they there, as many
fancied, with one of their hands tied up? There were
some who believed that the oath taken by Roman Catho-
lics involved no restriction as regerded their voting on
questions affecting the revenues ot the Prote; tant Church;
others believed that it did. It was time that the ques-
tion should be decided one way or the other.—(Hear.)
The House did not need to be afraid of the Catholics at-
tempting to appropriate the revenues of the Protestant
Church to themselves; for they held that the money of
the State would only contaminate them and do injury to
their religion.—(Hear.)
Mr. DRUMMOND said it was certainly somewhat
new to those who had some small smattering of historical
knowledge to be told that it was a prevailing doctrine in
the Catholic Church that all alliance with money and
wealth was detrimental to the cause of true religion.
It might be so in Ireland; but he, for one, could not
reconcile this new doctrine with the maxim of the Ca-
tholic Church—semper idem.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
that as they restricted the Catholics from voting on
questions affecting the Church of England, Protestants
should also be restricted from voting on all matters af-
fecting the Church of Rome.—(No, no.) Then they
would not adopt the maxim that " what was sauce for
the goose was sauce for the gander."—(Laughter.) He
objected to the amendment which the lion. Gentleman
intended to propose, because it went to enact an as post
facto law against Protestant Dissenters. At present,
Protestant Disienters were at liberty to enter that House
with the full privilege of taking what line they pleased
with regard to the Established Church, whereas, if the
proposed amendment were carried, it would take away
from them the privileges they already enjoyed.—(Hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY had not in-
tended speaking on this subject at all; but he felt com-
pelled to state why he had felt it to be his duty not to
vote for the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
V. Smith), and why he could not vote for the motion of
the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire. At present the
Roman Catholics. when they came to that House, were
obliged to take a certain oath. There was no compul-
sion upon them to become Members of that House ; bat
when they once became members they were obliged to
take the prescribed oath. The object of the Right Hon.
Gentleman's (Mr. V. Smith's) motion was to deliver
them from the inconveniences arising from that oath.
(theteEya(rtlhoef
RAormunadnelc's)atvhioelwicso)f the matter ruwpoans
this, that his
if they a
certain condition, to enter that House, it did not ap-
pear to him to be right that they should subsequently
take advantage of their acceptance of that condition to
do away with the condition itself.—(Rear, hear.) He
would illustrate his view by a familiar case. Suppose
that there was a club in London that admitted fo-
reigners to become members and to enjoy all the
ordinary advantages and privileges of the club, but
upon condition that they should not interfere with
the election of members ; and suppose that in
a few years ; afterwards . some gentleman should
move that the rule which prevented those foreign mem-
bers interfering in elections should be altered—would it
be right that those foreign members should votetwas for
inch
a motion? He thought it would not; and i
upon
hetthheatiptriginhetipuloon.Gentleman had declined voting forthDe
omrsootitoseniroef
man (Mr. V. Smith). With re-
spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for
he should decline-to vote either for or against it, and
tshheonsuisdel vtas—ve
(FilePater,l4l? tonly further say,
hear.) , ne would
Members ,to settle it amongst
that while he would not vote, for an alteration of the
Roman Catholienath himself, he should consider. it a
boon it it siernlaied foi them ; 'bicauie at present" it'
was the source'of "great inconvenience, from its being

differently interpreted by Catholics equally scrupulous
and equally honourable—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWI)EGATE could not feel otherwise than
highly gratified at the speech which the Noble Lord
had just made. Would that all Roman Catholics were
like him.—(Hear, hear.) Firm in upholding the in-
terests of his Church—ready to promote its advancement
even when it might be felt to be an invasion of the Es-
tablished Church, the Noble Lord yet refused to avail
himself of the doctrine which some Roman Catholics
held, that he was relieved from the obligation of an oath
whenever it interfered with the interests of his religion.
—(Cries of "No, no.") He (Mr. Newdegate) had in
his possession good evidence that such a doctrine was
held by some Roman Catholics. With reference to the
amendment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bar:ices), he begged
to say that although he thought it had a considerable
degree of reason on its side, yet, as he was not prepared
to alter the existing oaths, he felt that to vote for the
amendment would lead him into some embarrassment.

Mr. ANSTEY said he entirely concurred with the
Noble Lord in his views of the oath and of the duty of
Roman Catholics with respect to any proposition for its
alteration. Perhaps the best course would be to intro-
duce a clause preventing any person unconnected with
the Church of Engbod from interfering in any question
affecting its temporalities. If they did so, they would
only carry out by law what was in his judgment the
duty of every Roman Catholic Member, For his own
part, he had no doubt but that the intention of the Le-
gislature in passing the Act of 1829 was to prohibit
such an interference, and ho felt it his duty as a man of
honour to give effect to that intention, and could only
regret that the Act of 1829 had been framed in so
ambiguous, not to say so bungling, a manner as to
leave any Roman Catholic free to choose what course to
take.—(flear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER observed, that the view of the Act of
1829 taken by the Noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel and
Surrey) was only what he had expected from his high
character, and that the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet in introducing that measure, as well as the evi-
dence and sentiments of D. Doyle and others, proved
that view to be correct. He was glad to find that the
interpretation put on the oath by the promoters of the
Emancipation Act was that which was now affixed to
it by high-minded and honourable Members of the
House. _ _ _

Mr. SHEIL—I think it incumbent on me, as a Ro-
man Catholic, distinctly to state, that I neither coincide
in the interpretation put upon the oath by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell)
nor in that which has been put upon it by my Noble
Friend behind me (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey)
If the interpretation of the Noble Lord the Member for
Arundel—(for which he has incurred the panegyric of
the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of
Dublin, Mr. Napier)—be correct, it is quite clear that
no Roman Catholic could with propriety have voted on
the Church Temporalities Bill, for the diminution o'
the number of Bishops in Ireland, or for the Church Cess
Bill, the effect of which was to diminish the revenues
of the Established Church, indirectly, to the amount of
60,000/.—(Hear, hear.) Now there is a great distinction,
in my ,mind, between the total subversion of the
Church of Ireland and the diminution of its re-
venues, provided that, in such diminution, 3ou leave
and adequate sum, not only for its spiritual main-
tenance but for its temporal eustainment as a por-
tion of 'hr.. 7:i.-.11:;,1.17:,-7, 1.3-A:ch c 4 :hi!.; cc,wiltly. I
d" Co: think, it •-_
ri;i)! to enter in!(.l pr, ~- •
kai'113,,,,:0n el the ;saCL !v0r1,.; of t path,. bLq c.A.t-
tant rayscir with referring iio2- Ilium" to till' °b'mr-
rations made by Sir C. Wetherell.at the time it was in-
troduced. Ho :complained that it was perplexed and
obscure, and that it would be easy, to use a well-known
forensic phrase, to drive a coach•and-four through it.
What could be more easy than for any Roman Catholic
to swear he would not use any privilege to which he
might be entitled to diminish the temporal possessions of
the Church ? If Members of the HOMO thought there
should be a declaratory Act for the purpose of stating
what the oath meant, it would be easy to pass it. But
I cannot agree with my Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), that if a reso-
lution were passed putting an interpretation upon the
oath, he and other Hon. Members would be bound by it.
He should only be bound by Act of Parliament. Every
oath must be taken " sccunduni sensuni irnponentis.'
Who was to determine that ?—the Legislature. I
think I am bound, in conscience, however, and by every
moral obligation, not to subvert or overthrow the Church,
but, at the same time, that I am at liberty to make such
alterations in or applications of its revenues as may be
consistent with the due and proportionate maintenance of
the Estsblishment.—(Hear. hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY remarked,
that the speeches they had just heard afforded a proof
how Catholics of the highest honour differed with
respect to the oath.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL approved of the suggestion of
the Right Hon. Member fur Dungarvon, that the House
should pass a declaratory Act on the subject, as they
often did when there was doubt with respect to the con-
struction of a statute. He thought the House would not
consult its own dignity to leave the matter as it stood,
especially when they had just heard three Roman Ca-
tholics express different opinions upon it. The oath
should.certainly be taken in the sense in which it was
imposed,-but the difficulty was to find that sense. Were
the Roman Catholics emancipated or not ? It was well
for English Catholics to come into Parliament with
whatever understanding they pleased, but he begged to
remind them it was the Irish Catholics who won eman-
cipation, and who would not have accepted it if their
hands were to be tied. The Church of Ireland was
supported by the money of the Irish people, and he
wished to know if the Representatives of the majority of
the people were to have any voice in the disposal of that
money. Ho hoped the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell)
or the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would give
some answer to those questions.
-,.

Sir R. PEEL—If the Hon. 'Member's supposition
were correct, and if the oath to which he refers had
been introduced into the Act on my motion, it appears
to me I should act most improperly if I personally or
individually were to undertake to say what, in my
opinion, was tho proper construction of that oath.—
(Hear, hear.) The imposition of the oath was the act
of the House of Commons, and of the Legislature.
Votes have been. given in the House which have occa-
sioned some comment; but I am sure you *ill do me
the justico to say that, since 1829, I never attributed
it to any Member connected with Ireland that, in giv-
ing his vote, he had given it otherwise than in a proper
and conscientious manner. I say, therefore, that if it
had been introduced on my motion, nothing would have
been more unfair with respect to the Irish Members
who have been acting on their construction of the
oath than if I were to listen to the appeal that has
been made to me, and undertook to say what was
the sense of the Legislature in imposing it. If the
Legislature were dissatisfied with the course taken by
Roman Catholic Members, it would be the duty of the
Right Hon. Member, and others who think with him, to
establish some new rule, and to lay down expressly
what is their intention with respect to the admission of
Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament; but, to say that
Hon. Members who have acted on their own conscien-
tious construction of the oath are in error—that is an
office which I must decline to take. But the fact is, Hon.
Members are entirely in error in supposing that the oath
me. In 1899 a proposal was
in 1829 was introduced by
mule by express en ictment to remove the restrictions
on Romeo Catholics taking. their suits in this House. It
was then propos: d by a Right Hon, and much lamented
friend of mine—Mr. Wilmot Horton—that Roman Ca-
tholics should not be permitted to vote on questions re-
lating directly or indirectly to the interests of the Es-
tablished Church. I stated ray objections to the intro-
duction of any such proposal, which Mil made. I believe,
fro-;: the best supperted with ingenuity,
ability, and research. I said
"My Right Hon. Friend has proposed, with a view to
calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the
admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the
' Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law
from voting on matters relatiug, directly or indirectly, to
the interests of the Established Church. There appear
to me emmerous and cogent objections to this proposal.
In the first place, it is dangerous to establish the prece-
dent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties
and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exer-
cised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand
what are the questions which affect the interests of the
Church. A question which has no immediate apparent
connexion with the Church might have a practical bear-
ing upon its welfare ten times more important than
another question which might appear directly to concern
it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic from
giving his individual vote, you do little to diminish
his real influence, if you leave him the power of
speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the
question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a
jealous and distrusting, but ineffectual precaution, you
tempt him to exercise, to your prejudice, the remaining
power of which you cannot, or do not, propose to deprive
him. I believe there is more of real security in confi-
dence than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccom-
panied by effectual guards. For these reasons lam un-
willing to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either
House of Parliament of any privilege of free discussion
and free exercise of judgment which belongs to other
Members of the Legislature.
I have ventured to trouble the House with this quota-
tion, because it is the cotemporaneous explanation of
the object I had in view in 1829; but at the same time
the Act did requie, an oath to be taken by Roman
Catholics—not imposing it, however, for the first time,
but adopting the form of oath in an Act passed in
1793, which was taken from an earlier statute in 1774,
which was arranged in concert with the Roman Catho-
lics, and to which they had no objection whatever. Hon.
Gentlemen would recollect it was no easy matter to
carry the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. We had to look
out to see in what way we were to succeed, and lam
perfectly certain we could not have parted with any se-
curity which then existed. In order to show the Right
Hon. Gentleman he is in error, I will read the oath
which Roman Catholics were required to take by the Act
of 1793. The Act of 1793 conferred very important
privileges upon them. It admitted them into civil and
military offices, places of trust, and into the police. In
fact, all places under the Crown, with some exceptions
mentioned, were opened to them provided they would
take this oath. The Act of 1793 put them on the same
footing as other subjects of the Crown, having removed
all disability with respect to landed property. The
oath required to be taken was as follows :
" And I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of
my power the settlement and arrangement of property
in this country as established by the laws now in being.
I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any
intention to subvert the present Church Establishment
for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment
iii Its stead ; and I do solemnly swear that I will not
exercise any, privilege to which lam or may become
entitled to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion
and Protestant Governmot" iu .this kingdom.—So help
me God."
Every one appointed to any office under the Act of 1793,