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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARcs 1.
The Lola) Csimecreeon took his seat at Five o'Clock on
the Woolsack.
Mr. BARN any and others brought up the Custody of Insane
Persons Bill with the amendments agreed to, and two private
Bills. •
Lord FOLEY presented a petition, signed by 1,500 of the
inhabitants of Kidderminster, praying for the total and imme-
diate abolition cf Slavery.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from cer-
itain inhabitants of the City of Cork, which, as it was not very
long, but very important, he moved that it should be read
by the Clerk'of the House. [The petition set forth that by
the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill in 1829. a se-
rious alteration was made in the security of the ecclesiastical
property of this country, and by which the Roman Ca-
tholics of the United Kingdom were rendered eli-
gible to various offices and scats in Parliament. That
notwithstanding the oath taken by Roman Catholics,
upon entering into office and taking seats in Parliament, not
to subvert the Protestant Church or weaken the esta-
blished religion, the petitioners had viewed with great'
alarm certain persons of this description openly avowing
themselves in favour of the overthrow of the Established
Church. The petitioners called their Lordships' atten-
tion more particularly to the fact of conspiracies existing
amongst other places in Cork and Carlow, for the express
purpose of taking away the lives of Protestants by base and
false swearing on the part of Roman Catholics, and which
it was apprehended had succeeded in numerous instances,
and the petitioners prayed their Lordships to adopt such mea-
sures as might be calculated to render the sworn engagements
of the Roman Catholics effectual for the purposes for which
they were intended.] The Right Rev. Prelate stated that the
petition which their Lordships had just heard read, represented
that a solemn compact had been made between the Roman
Catholics of the United Kingdom and this Protestant State,
before they were admitted to the benefits which the Roman
Catholic Relief Act gave them ; and as it had been denied that
such a compact had been entered into, he should feel it to be his
duty to make a few observations to the House, showing that
such a compact had been made. It had been denied, if re-
liance could be placed in the published reports of the last
session of Parliament (and he did not know why re-
liance should not be placed on them), by Mr.
O'Connell, on the 11th of March, 1834, when he
moved that a Select Committee should be appointed to con-
sider the oaths taken by Members of that House. He then
stated that in 1829 they had not been asked by the Govern
ment to make any compact or contract, and they had made
none ; that a seat in Parliament was not to be considered by
by them as a privilege, but as a matter of right. This was the
statement of that Member, after Lord Althorp and Sir R. Peel
had both declared their extreme regret that, within so few
years, this matter should again be brought before the conside-
ration of the House. Lord Althorp said, as well as he (the Right
Rev. Prelate) recollected, on that occasion, that if it had been
conceived possible that within five years from the passing
of that Act such a proposition could have been made in
either House of Parliament, he was quite sure the measure
would not have been carried. Sir Robert Peel went more
at large into the subject to show there had been a
compact. Now it had never been contended that there had
been a compact entered into with all the necessary forms
of recognized powers ; but it was a question of common
sense and common feeling, whether what had passed
on both sides did or did Lot amount to a compact.
He (the Right Rev. Prelate) did not see all the Noble Lords
present who were likely to be in a condition to know
what passed between the Roman Catholics and the Pro-
testant leaders of the House of Commons at that
time Noble Lords who must know whether any-
thing like a compact passed even then ; hut there
were some in their Lordships' House who must have.
known, and he ventured to express a hope that they would
have the goodness to say, if it were contradicted now,
whether there was a compact entered into at that time,
or a ything that amounted to one ?--( Cries of " Hear.")
Whatever might be the result of that appeal, he should take
leave to show that enough had passed on the pert of the Ro-
man Catholics in making their applications to Parliament
to make them contracting parties to any measure which
might be passed for their relief.—( Hear, hear.) They were
called by the humble name of petitions at first, though after-
wards they were in the nature of demands for relief. He
would take short extracts from certain petitions which that
body had presented at various times to the House.—( Hear,
hear.) The first to which he would allude was one pre-
sented in the year 1757 from Dr. O'Keefe, a Mr. O'Connell
and others, in which they stated "that it has been objected to
us that we wish to subvert the present Protestant Establish-
meet. We hereby earnestly and solemnly abjure any
such intention, and we hereby solemnly pledge our-
selves that we will not exercise the privilege of the elec-
tive franchise, if granted to us, for any such purpose."
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman to whom he had furs e ly
alluded denied that the elective franchise was a privilege,
and claimed it as a right ; yet it was singular to see that
in the very earli,st movement made by the Catholic party it
was called it a pri,i`ege. The neat he would allude to was
presented in 1805, and was the more sinnular as being the
the first signed by Mr. O'Connell. It stated that the Catholic
party felt bound to defend the right of property established by
the laws now in beieg, ar.l they earnestly disclaimed any in-
tention of disturbing the Protestant religion and establishment.
This petition was remarkable, because it was presented to the
House of Commons by a Noble a-id Learned Lord, as he now
:vas, but who was at that time a Member of the House of
Cc mrnons. He seas sorry that that Noble and Learned Lord
was rot then in his place, because lie was quite sure Ile
would hove concurred in what he was then stating.
The petitioners denied any intention of subverting the Church
Establishmeat fur the purpose of substituting a Catholic
Establishment in its stead. It so happened that that Noble
end Learned Lord—lion. and ' earnel Gentleman as he then
was—in presenting that petition, remarked on the oath ia
a very strong way.—('clear, hear.) He aid, you have get
all tee security that oaths can by possibility give. I (holy the
eadthtohlei tr'es
wasait oaf Lahn toto devise
give
e anythingvery s g
is
rsaterLoi
n t
hand R
ohe ni
asnt act
at that time to the Legislature, and to the Protestant State of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of their
fidelity to the engagerneets they ;sere willing to enter into.
The Secretary of the Catholics of Queens County, a member
of a Catholic Board, had declared before a Committee of the
House of Commons—and he need not say that a gentleman in
that situation was equally worthy of credit whether on
ooh or declaration—that gentleman said he believed
the Catholic body had no desire to intermeddle with the
Church Establishment. That Gentleman was then asked,
• Have you in conversations at meetings of Catholics, or corn-
reulicatiens with Catholics, ever heard any speculation ad-
vanced of a change in that est tblialiment being de-
sireable to the Catholics of Ireland ?" The cnswer
wad " Never, nor do I believe the Catholics ever
wished or desired it. As a Roman Catholic, and communi-
cating with the respectable portion of them, we have always
deeply regretted that the subject of our emancipation has bisen
:nixed up still) ecclesiastical matters. We deem it unfortu-
nate that the questions were not separated, and our would
be that every possible guard and defence and pro-
tection
allctit7slmu her rig
should etillitrsowannd round the
He would now advert to some clerical statements. He would
read sorre declarations of Dr. M'Ha'e—not then so high in the
bs
Church as he is now—but in a position which entitled his opi-
s shouldE sEstablished
led Church,
ei preserved."
salons as to Catholics to great respect. In 1826, Dr. Mt Hale,
alto had -been fur eleven years lecturer en Dogmatical Phi-
losophy in Maynooth College, stated, before the Commis-.
shiners el' Inquiry into Irish Education, as follows
" Without reference to Parliamentary enactments, I
do not consider the Church Establishment in this
country as productive of benefit to this country, but as I am
bound to obey the law, I shall acquiesce in the enactments of
the Legislat etre. if there were no laws to bind me,
I should feel no respect for the Establishment ; as it is,
I am bound by the Legislature of the country, and re-
spect its enactments." In another place,
" although the
great mass of the Catholic population derived no benefit from
the Established Church, and are therefore under no moral
obligation for paying tithes; to: it ; yet so long as the law re-
quires that tithes shall be paid, they will acquiesce in its deci-
sions." Ile went on to say, "as to the dignitaries of tile Es-
tablished Church in Ireland, we shall never refuse their ju-
risdiction in their temporalities, or the possession of their titles,
powerlv
e otuoght take
nott h etmo
raewf auys
e, andhon coounr stiod ewrhi nogmthat, conceiving that the State which conferred them alone has the
oausrSist.dPue", orsay,
tri-
bute to whom tribute.' " Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) would
srfer
oento a y
than
Mr. O'Connell
rimo
plta •hnitmsteelsft,imaonnl of no lessdiawhichhest a r-
atedpeas
having been quoted in that House by the Earl of Win-
chilsca, though he (the Bishop of Exeter) had not had
time to refer to the exact place from which it was taken.
The questions asked were, " Suppose witness to receive a
carte blanche on the subject of Catholic emancipation, and
were required to fill up the extent of concession with which
the Roman Catholics would be satisfied, how would he do so,
and what would they require ?" Mr. O'Connell replied that
he would require that the doors of both Houses of Parliament
should be thrown open to the Catholics, .rd that persons
holding that religion should be eligible to hold the situation
ofwould
e Judges, &c., from which they were excluded. This was what
require and what would satisfy them. In answer to
other questions, Mr. O'Connell said he would recommend
that no concessions whatever should be made to the Roman
Catholics, unless the Establishment in. Ireland should be ren-
dered inviolable. It was then said " the recommendation
now given, and the opinions now expressed by witness, appear
to be at variance with his speeches in the Catholic As-
sociation, and elsewhere." Mr. O'Connell replied, that
he did not hold himself bound by what he had said in that
Assembly or elsewhere under particular circumstances—
that many things had been spoken by him in the heat
of debate, to which in cooler moments he would not
give his sanction. Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought he
had established that Roman Catholics on their part were ready
to enter into this contract ; and from what he had said of the
declaration in the other House of Parliament, on the 11th of
March, 1834, it was clearly so considered by Parliament. On
the 28th of April, 1837, on the Marquis of Downshirc
presenting a petition from the Protestants of Ireland, stating
that they did not approve of that oath, the Noble Lord near him
said he did not approve of that oath, but their Lordships knew
low it was got into the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Without
that oath their Lordships knew the Bill would never have been
got through Parliament. That was very true and very satisfactory
to show that ,which amounted to a contract on both sides.
He still hoped that they should have the advantage of hear-
ing, what must be known to certain Noble Lords—namely,'
what passed between the leaders of the Roman Catholics
and Protestants. Whether there was a contract or not,