The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAitcur 11.
OATHS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
(Mr. O'Connell's Speech concluded from our Second
Edition of yesterday.) ---------There was
changed at the revolution, and why ?—because no tole-
ration or liberty of conscience would be granted in Scot-
I ind till the oath was altered. No member of the Presby-
terian church would swear that the King was head in
spiritual affairs, and, accordingly, to meet their scruples
the oath was altered, so that it became a mere oath of ne-
gation, of spiritual dominion in any foreign prince, pope,
or prelate. It was no longer an oath of supremacy, but a
denial of any spiritual jurisdiction. This satisfied the
Presbyterians, and combined the churches of England and
Scotland—the consciences of both were satisfied, and
from that period to this the oath had remained unaltered.
But that was equally repugnant to the Catholics, for
while they could not admit the supremacy of the crown,
they could not acknowledge the church of Scotland. In
the Irish parliament, during the reigns of Elizabeth, Charles
I. and Charles 11., it was not necessary for any member
of the Irish parliament to take the oath of supremacy. It
was quite true that at the restoration in the month
of M y, 1661, a resolution passed in the Irish house
of Commons that the oath of supremacy ought to
be taken, but that turned out to be a dead letter
until the revolution. The English parliament in the
13th and 14th of William, passed an act, not for England
at all, for England was not mentioned, obliging the
Irish Parliament to take the oath of supremacy and ab-
juration, and from the 2d of William and Mary up to
1782 those oaths were required in Ireland although they
were not taken. An act was then passed giving efficacy
to all the laws passed in England with regard to
Ireland. But he was certainly not now going into any
controversy upon the omi,sion of legislative sanctions
which were taken for granted up to the year 1829. He
was going through this historical sketch merely to show
that it was not necessary in the House of Commons that
any religious oaths should be taken. They origi-
nated in religious dissensions, and when those dissen-
sions ceased there was no more occasion for them.
In 1829, considerable alteration was made. In that
year an act was passed, which established the oath which
was at present taken by the Roman Catholics; and
by the same act another very excellent alteration was
made by striking out of the oath taken by Protestants, the
declaration that the worship of their fellows, the Catholics,
was impious and idolatrous. That was an excellent altera-
tion, for it would not have been pleasant to have
sat and heard the old oath administered. There were,
however, still some strange anomalies between the
oaths taken by the members of that house. On one
side of the board he saw three oaths that were
required to be taken by the Protestant, while on
the other side, be found only one that the Catholic was
required to take. The Protestant was called upon to ab-
jure the house o, Stuart, while the Catholic was not. Now,
he had always understood that, in point of politics, the
Catholics were the class of persons who were most likely to
have a leaning that way ; be should have thought the
Common sense view of the matter was, that that oath
should have been extracted from the Catholic, while
the Protestant should have been exempted from it.
Protestants were also called upon to swear that they would
never bear any allegiance to any descendant of James II
Now how stood the fact? Why, that no such descendant
was in existence. Was not that taking God's name in
vain? Would it not be more in accordance with
the spirit of the present day that all members should be
required to take one oath only, that of allegiance to the
crown ; that was an oath in which all could join—no
Protestant would refuse it, and no Catholic had the
slighest objection whatever to it.—(Hear, bear, hear.)
That Catholic oath in its former part was an oath of
fidelity and allegiance. He saw no objection to that,
though it was certainly different to that adopted by Pro-
testants. The Protestants and Catholics did not equally
swear upon the same subject. He was as ready to testify
his allegiance to the heirs of the Princess Sophia,
being Protestants, as if the oath had been ad-
ministered to him ; but there was a part of the oath
which he considered a complete insult :—" And I do fur-
ther declare that it is not any article of my faith that any
princes excommunicated by the See of Rome may be de-
posed or murdered by their subjects, or any person what-
soever." Why should the Catholic be called upon to
swear? He should have no objection to make the
declaration—(Hear, hear)—and what right, he would
a,k, had the house to insult him by calling upon
him to take such an oath ? Was it possible, be would ask,
for any man to be so destitute of moral feeling as to con-
sider that he bad a right to murder any man because
the Pope had excommunicated him?—(Hear.) In his
opinion, the oath would be no sanction to any man
who believed in anything so monstrous and unjust.
He called for a committee to inquire whether such an
oath was necessary ; if it were, he would bend his neck
to the yoke—he would submit. But he denied that it
was necessary, and therefore he considered it im-
perative on him to call the attention of the house
to it. He had the most ineffable contempt for
the doctrine implied in that oath. Regarding that part
of the oath wherein the Pope's jurisdiction is renounced,
he (Mr. O'C.) had no objection. He would pledge his
most solemn sanction to that—but if it were necessary to
swear resistance, even unto death, of any civil interference
in those realms, there was no protestant half as anxious
as he (Mr. ('Connell) was to take such an oath,—
(Hear, hear.) But what dread did any rational
person entertain of the temporal power of the Pope ?
Heaven help the maniac who could imagine that the
Pope, who was trembling for his own small dominions,
could put the temporal authority of those kingdoms into
jeopardy. Was it not a sensible thing to think that those
realms should at any time be invaded by a regiment of
Cardinals, and a squadron of Friars turned into riflemen ?
The oath then went on—" And I do swear that I will
defend to the utmost of ray power the settlement of pro-
perty in this realm, as by law established." That pre-
vented his making any alterations in the law regarding
property, but it was an undoubted fact that that law
had been frequently altered. He could mention an in-
stance in which, by an act passed (luring the last year, a
gentleman became the inheritor of property to the amount
of 4,0001. a year, which he could not inherit as the
law previously stood, and of which he had not
the most remote prospect of enjoying. Therefore that
oath was quite absurd, and the man who took it that
year would have a different impression on his mind
from the man who took it the previous year. He
only threw that out to show how far equivocation would
go as regarded that oath. The argument he (Mr. O'Con-
nell) used had been used on a former occasion with re-
spect to the coronation oath. What millions of pamphlets
.—what masses of arguments and thousands of speeches had
been used regarding the violation of the coronation oath,
all turning on the mere equivocation of the words, or the
different interpretations which different individuals might
give them. Did it require the Catholics any more than
the Protestants to swear that they would defend the state
of property ? If they did net swear the Pro-
testants, why did they swear the Catholics ?
--(Hear, hear.) The oath then went on—" And I
abajsurbeyanlaywinetsetna-.
inten-
tion hereby o
subvert disclaim,
t he disavow,
church
blished within the realm." The same solution might be
applied to that as to the former paragraph ; and
here again he would adduce tbe occurrences of last year,
when Ministers had passed the Church Temporalities Bill,
a bill which had unsettled the church establish-
ment more than any act that had taken place since the
revolution.—(Hear.) What be (Mr. O'C.) required
was a committee which would put an end to these equi-
vocations. The oath went on—" And I do solemnly swear
that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am
or may be entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant re-
ligion or Protestant government within the realm.'
Wha was tbe meaning of Pro'estant government now in
wthhe
mighte
h theba:
Chancellor—the
Catholics
ctfshi
eat hmeegxamocnveaep:rta
magistrates,
exception
ns
rfi
aenteoedtf:to swear that govern.
might be Catholics, the entire of the judicial seats might be
InCnaavtpyhOoiltnihets;of law all who were admitted into the Govern
twheisaconu,
anst country?
ment, with the exception of the Chancellor, might lie
Catholics.—(Hear.) Was it safe, then, to swear that
such a government Was a Protestant government, whet,
there were only two--the King and the Chancellor—at
all connected with it, whom it was necessary should be
wm?jythWa Protestant
ntadhs

oPfr ogtteesat at n
dtiffi cu He couildienontiihguhtt fele)! thiaatt:gtiliwids teasafoproihnist
lty.scruples, but he could not help acknowledging his scruples
on this subject had been very great. He had been told
that it was the legislature itself which had passed
the act, and as the word Protestant had been introduced, it
must have intended such a Protestant government as now
existed to have been understood—namely, composed only
as it might be of a Protestant King and Protestant keeper
of his conscience, all the other members being Catholics.
He trusted he had not done wrong in taking up a strong
feeling on this question—such feeling he entertained. Was
it intended to be said that there was a great difference
between Protestantism and the meaning of a Protestant
government ? They certainly were, as far as he was ca-
pable of distinguishing between them, most essentially dif-
ferent, and this was a fact which the house ought
gravely to consider, when it came to call upon members
who took their seats there to take the oaths, which it was
now considered necessary to administer to them. Before
the admission of Catholics into Parliament, he had read a
thousand speeches in which it was declared, that if the
Catholics were admitted, although small in number, they
would act in one body and turn the scale of parties in that
house. What had been the result of that prophesy ? The
Catholics had never but once acted as a body in that house,
and that was on the question of removing the Civil Dis-
abilities of the Jews. Never had a prediction been so stul-
tified by events. He repeated that he thought he bad
made out a complete case for the appointment of a com-
mittee to consider the oaths which were taken, and those,
if any, which ought to be taken by members of that house.
In his opinion all religious oaths whatever ought to be
abolished. He should conclude by assuring the house that
he had been induced to bring the subject before the house
from a strong and conscientious conviction of the necessity
of a final construction being put upon the oath—a con-
s:ruction of so marked and emphatic a character that no
man could hereafter have any doubt respecting it..—( Hear.)
The hon. gentleman concluded by reading his motion.
Lord AL rHORP had little to say upon this motion.
The first point be should touch upon would be as to the
propriety of the course which the hon. and learned mem-
ber was desirous of adopting—whether in point of fora,
referring the subject to a select committee was the proper
mode of proceeding. No inquiry could be entered on
from which they could expect any result—an examination
of facts was requisite, for they had the oaths already lie-
fore them, and it really appeared to him to be a question
which, if entertained at all, 'should be entertained by the
whole house.—(Hear, hear.) That was the only way of
dealing satisfactorily with such a question. Seeing that
the question had been dealt with so late as five years ago,
and that the oath more particularly alluded to had been
enacted in the light of a safeguard—wrongly so, in his
opinion—a safeguard which by many was still considered
as essential, he did not see there would be any wisdom in
interfering with it. Even with his own feelings and
opinions, he must still say he should be under very great
difficulty indeed in taking any step upon the subject.
Besides, as the oath at present stood, experience
proved that it did not act as a bar or interference
to the full enjoyment of those privileges which the
Relief Bill was intended to bestow, nor did he believe
there was any scruple of conscience in taking i% With
these views—seeing they were so little removed from the
time when the oath was framed—seeing that it did not
deprive any one of a right, and that there was no scruple
of conscience to taking it, he could not agree to it, and he
really thought the hon. and learned gentleman would do
better—if he stirred in the matter at all—to bring in a
bill at once upon the subject. However he (Lord Althurp)
might be individually inclined, he was sure that it was not
a prudent course to press the matter on the house at the
present time. There was no great political grievance in-
volved ; and knowing what were the feelings of a great
body of individuals out of doors, he could not give his sanc-
tion to the motion before the house.—(ll. ar.)
11Ir. LANGDALE fully agreed with the hon. and
learned member for Dublin that a clear and oistinct inter-
pretation should be put upon every Act of Parliament iu
which there was an oath.

sir ROBERT PEEL fully concurred in the opinion
expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that even
were it advisable to interfere at all in this matter, it was
not to a select committee that it should be referred. The
House of Commons was the proper place in which to decide
the question, and he, for one, would not consent to devolve
on a committee any such duties as those proposed. It
was of the first importance that they should not confound
the various provinces which had the certain effect of making
each one less capable in the performance of its functions.
—(clear, hear.)
.The hon. and learned member for
Dublin had stated, that if the committee put a certain con-
struction on the oath to which reference had been so often
made, he fur one would instantly vacate his seat. NV by
the moment the hon. and learned gentleman uttered those
words, he gave a conclusive argument against the course
which be himself proposes. They were to devolve on a
committee the power to make a member resign his seat.
Now this he really never could cons,nt
..to. He (Sir
Robert) felt bound also to express his great regret, that this
question had been agitated at all. He did think, not having
forgotten what took place in a farmer year, that if
the then House of Commons had anticipated that in
the short space of five years after the passing of the
Catholic Relief Bill, by which every disability was
removed, the Roman Catholics would have agitated the
question of the oath which was specifically framed and
agreed to as a security, many influtorial members would
have taken a very ddferent course to what they did. He
thought nothing could be so unwise, after the people had
consented to the wishes of the Catholic body, and a ma-
jority of the Lords had decided on concession—when both
Lords and people gave in full what had been anxiously
sought after, and taken these oaths, as it was understood
they should be taken, as valid securities against any dan-
ger, real or supposed. He did think that a more unwise
motion than the present could not have been made, or one
more calculated to stem the course of liberal concession
hereafter.—(Hear, hear.) A compact had been entered
into, which, though not upheld by legal technicalities,
was to all intents and purposes morally binding upon all
parties. He could declare most positively, and indeed he
believed it was generally admitted, that no one was more
anxious than he (Sir R. Peel) so to frame the oath, diet
it should not hurt the feelings of any man ; and though
he found great difficulties indeed to contend with, he did
succeed in excluding all those parts of the former oath
which could be looked on even in the slightest degree as
offensive. Why the hon. and learned member had been
compelled by an act of parliament passed in 1793 to take
the original oath before he could be called to the bar,
and by so taking it had conditioned to release himself from
the effects of the penal laws. But the hon. and learned
gentleman was disgusted at having to take this oath,
although, after the most mature deliberation, number-
less Roman Catholic divines and lawyers had declared there
was nothing in it repugnant to the faith which they pro
fessed. But seeing that the oath was calculatea to excite dis-
gust, he (sir R. Peel) putit to the house whether it would
not have been more just and proper, as the bill was for
such a length of time before both houses of parliament, to
have started these objections before it had passed, and not
five years after the compact had been made.—(litar.)
The bon. and learned gentleman should remember what
he himself said immediately after hie return for Clare,
in
addressing that house in support of his claim to his seat
without taking the oath of supremacy. His own
, words
upon that memorable occasion were these :—c I think 1
cannot be accused of affectation when I state that I am
very ignorant of the forms of• this house, and, therefore, I
require the kind indulgence of the house if I happen to
t ought
violate them. I claim my right to sit and vote in the
house—as the representative of the county of Clare—
without taking the oath of supremacy. I am ready to
etc
'e
the
take the oath of allegiance provided by the recent statute
Catholic subjects.' I am desirous to have that oath ad
ministered." Now he (Sir Robert Peel) considered, a
:f
et
hn et irtel ehda bAene nAacnt fo h
te re
i
y obr
jion tol
f o
f icis
i‘la
ojh
ntty,' s i
Rm
to have been stated on that occasion.
Dr. LUSHINGTON objected to any oaths at all,
he held that the people of England
were competent to
select as representatives those whose previous character
gave a far better guarantee for the integrity of their con-
duct. The present system of oaths was highly
reprehen-
sible, and tended greatly to desecrate the public mind.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS was much surprised at the ob-
servations of the hon. and learned member. It was not
by a contemptuous disregard of all who were eminent in
the profession in which the lion, gentleman ranked so high,
that he would maintain his aye' meats in that house. For
his (Sir R. Inglis's) part, he would prefer quiet error to
unruly truth.—(Hear.) The hon. and learned member
bad mooted three positions; but for his (Sir R. Inglis's)
part, he had no hesitation in saying that he lamented that
Roman Catholics were not deprived of voting, unless re
strained by oath. He would put to the house—_(Hear)—
he would stand or fall upon the ground which he then occu-
pied, whether Roman Catholics, after taking the oath which
he would proceed to read, could interfere in aught relating
to the temporalities of the established church of this coon
try. The hon. gentleman went on to read as follows :
—" And I, A. 8., do declare that I do not believe that
the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince or prelate,
person, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any
temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-
eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. 1 do
swear that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the

settlement of the property within this realm as established
by the laws. And Ido hereby disclaim, disavow, and sob
lemnly adjure, any intention to subvert the present chorea
establishment as settled by the law within this realro. An
I do solemnly swear that I will never exercise any Privilege
to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or
weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant gosernrepentf
in this kingdoin. And Ido solemnly, in the presee,c;lo..
sense of this oath, without any evasion, e
God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do Make lb.!
rer
claration, and every part thereof, in the plain and nrd'na or
mental reservation whatsoever."—(Hear, bear.) 'titer. ?
id
.
reading of that solemn oath, what could further be,eauti.
Yet the hon. and learned gentleman had spoken °I a
quated engagements—of absurd and unnecessary did'
(Hear, hear.) Disagreeing as he (Sir R. Inglis) Mt (thele
justness or propriety of the bill which had given !nut ~t
right hon. and learned member for Dublin) a seat in that
house; yet so long as they stood in the present position!
so long as the bon. and learned member himself admitted_
pro Canto—such a protection to the Protestant estsblihsh
ment of the country—so long as the house claimed t 11,r
oath to guard the national church—so long as the King a
Majesty had pledged himself at his coronation to guard
the church, his (Sir R. Inglis s) answer would hee,Ktha
the present was a Protestant government--that th
.King
confine himself
was essentially Protestant; lie would not .,.
to the executive; but the King had stated that be would
Awu
maintain the Protestant religion, and upon that he I
rely, and enter his strongest protest upon what had been...e
ads anced to the contrary in the house that evening. 11
believed, without an oath there could be no stability--n°
security ; and he therefore denounced the doctrine thus
propounded. He opposed, and should continue to opposes
this sweeping and unhallowed view of the question then
before them.—(Hear.) quivoeation
the
Dr. LUSHINGTON never intended to convey anything
but his dissent from the extraordinary multiplicity "f
oaths, and the very much to be deprecated results which
STANLEY concurred entirely in the opinion
had fl,wed from them.
Mr. jest
laid down by his hon. and learned friend (Dr. Lushington).
He (Mr. Stanley) agreed that in the unnecessary multi-
plieation of oaths there was the greatest danger that a
strict observance of those oaths would not be regarded, by ,
which means the strong and general impression as to the
security of the obligation of an oath would be diminished.
—(Hear, hear.) He felt bound to admit, however,
that he certainly thought that one observation of his
honourable and learned friend justified the impression
that he was against the administration of all oaths. Ins
(Mr. Stanley's) hon. and learned friend said that the doc
trines that he (Dr. Lushington) had that night advanced
would not have been tolerated in an unreformed house of
Commons. He (Mr. Stanley) wished that some of the
doctrines that had been laid down by his hon. and loured
friend would never be tolerated or supported in a reformel
sures, which he considered of the
House of Commons.—(Efear, he ,r.) He (Mr. Stanley)
had ever given his cordial and earnest assent to his area-
he laud supported two measures to which, ever sinceerb
had taken part in political transactions, he had eon:dames,:
himself bound and pledged, not by previously d i
of his
the dictates t
opinions, but he felt himself bound by
()Nu feelings, and by the convictions of his mind, to gef
rightsh e:.
rid of all impositions and checks on the civil
those who dissented from the doctrines of the Churce 00
England.—(Hear, hear.) The second great measurh
he
..
which be considered himself pledged was one by whic tt °,
and
people of England would have the power of checkinngs...... ,
influencing the proceedings of the House of Conn,
at"
Hear, hear.) He rejoiced that two measures for tnee..oo
greatest importance
e;
taininent of these great objects had received thee sdaid ;1130,
te considerslgislature; and, by supporting the b .
1 That
established church of England.—(Hear, ;:,, uphold
that he was bound to give up any urnY t° the
church he, for one, would always be prep re
um ld not des
and maintain ; but, at the same time, he - -nil rigbte
prive any man or set of men of their political or co/..
might
in cons- quence of dissenting from that church. l'
d by the
he his (Mr. Stanley's) fortune to be left behin „eo d,
popular feeling, as was said by his hon. and learned._llMr„
in consequence of entertaining such opinions
.Ssenrves,that
Stanley) had then expressed ; but he would
° sf
the R°
man Catholics to sit in Parliament, he bad 1
from the first time he had supported the claims
notof
changed
rincl'
his political creed—lie had not altered his politiclii.hed
religiono]e s ( Hnetn rt.h)e
church His views f wereEt,g 1
at on supportd_ sH ea trl:eh established
„bout::
at the same time, to remove all those restrictio
ie.,clu
every class of his Majesty's eubjects.--(
might be deemed as wounding the feeling or Ce°'„ce all
passed by bolder statesmen—(Hear,
of those dissenting from the church, and still Ini -bete of
restrictions that had been imposed on the civil 141,,,ar.)
of,T,aifotirtnothhafheeuilrps,l
eypi,,iianponilnoed.noascfna
cautiously
Hear, ',•-.00
he should continue to hold, notwithstanding be left far
behind by his hon. and learned friend (Dr. Lushington)o- (1
hear)----"d 4.- b
laid it down as a maxim, that he wag the wisest gatemn,
tiat;rile h(csi;ibtfesi't;
who was the boldest statesman • and by the latter exprebso
the country, and relied u oita the sound and strong °B.O.
. ~,,,i swots... :
and therefore the wiser statesman, who pet bin'''. eat,
etteale
head of every show of political agitation and es quiet
and taking the lead in every clamour, with a view tothiog
public opinion, and above all, to consider that
eined.„_,
had been done whilst anything remained to b: gfore tele°
(Cheers.) Such, then, was the bold, and tit.,re r, bear.) •
statesman of his hon. and learned friend.---(rteuebig feels
He (Mr. Stanley) admitted a statesman but he (Mr.
a course would be a bold statesman, but his tvis-
Stanley) must take the liberty of doubting
ed owl
dom.—(Hear, bear.) His hon. and leaf° ge (gr.
said he would run before the popular be
to On;
Stanley) would ask how long he would be ;low, hear.)
trot and run before the public voice ?•-••••1/4 -0, enter'
Until some wiser politician arose.--until sonte.,
snelne
inso
taining more extreme opinions was found--unt.d of the p 0
arose who was able to keep himself at the bed thee, the
'ideal excitement of the day.—(Cheere.) Thuso_nd would
wisest statesman would continue his influene!e*
.) His
endeavour to lead the public with him.--(litZfotheo
hon. and learned friend said, that be who went rot cotoe'
in yielding to the popular voice pursued the ea 00d setae
He (Mr. Stanley) had perfect reliance on the gthe iotel
of the people of England : he had confidence io_, his OM
and it was
ligence and integrity of the country ; to be nir
conviction, that as much public confidence
dvt'COngi.tePtall
tamed and maintained by opposingsteadily an
win or yiel
the political clamour of the day, as V follocwrogere.) 00
ing to public excitement and agitatient•--;( wieest stater
(Mr. Stanley) therefore said that he "a t es
it had bee
man who followed not the bold course, a
son and tbe
called, but who looked to the reflecting reason and . y di,
be influenced by the
sound sense of the country, not to i 'eetions " 6
clamour, but prepared to meet plausible 0 9 1
prepared 1°
one hand, and disaffection on the other ; an
.0 ~e 0'
abide by and defend those opinions and doctrine
would
such
cerely entertained.—(Hear.) And not only cron aelsr
0,, por 41
a man be the wisest statesman, but also the 10_, . %tor,.
statesman, in the only sense that popularitY ',11,-) 05
obtaining. His hon. friend opposite (Sir R. Ingien'9; Pi'
too far on the other aide of the q-uestion. ;001 r.
friendand was for supporting quiet and mild °„eolitio.
objecting to yield to popular and r higher
feelings. There was no one who could entertain nit' he sni
regard than he did for his hon. friend, from vih°l,od sli'
often differed on political questions. His ho°'
i tirerrors ift 0
that he was often for adopting. mild and qu-e NOW, ,1.1, )
political matters instead of more unruly truths' follow "'s
(Mr. Stanley) would allow his hon. friend to e
.0000,
own doctrines, but be (Mr. Stanley) would nev r 'bor)
to set aside truth because error was easier.--(llear' cisfied
when sa if
It was
his
firm conviction that a statesman, . „op
of the truth • d • •of political course, stioultbst fie
an justice apo . .
it out firmly, sincerely, and conscientiously. 't
'eh ha
truth of win to• !
should follow out thOse principles of the tru eireu
. flicting . the 1
wes convinced, without regard to Lon 5,00 _. 1
stances, which might for a time debar his
theprogr pierre.,
course he was pursuing, and without regard t°
...(sstit;
presentations to which he might be exposeke siioo,3l,
With respect to the importance of upholding ",•itioos !P....,
of an oath, no one could entertain stronger It'll witts°o7l
'himself. He did not allude to taking an °wood' 50
any regard to the words or to the obligation ' rd with° d
soda fle bad
when the terms of the oath became mere nri. n.the
sense, but to a sacred and solemn obliga.t..!--tgbicb --00
had some experience as to the manner 1" 0 wan °tot •
were occasionally administered. Indeed ;el. 0 with
of
have been present at a contested el sic'eiolatinntice .
having seen many instances
of the gro;oold ineininseit,
oaths.—(Hear, hear.) On that point be d to ,b of'
°collo
_ilitea one
__
to the house a circumstance that
s 9 aPP! Jog tw'
some years ago. Some years ago be n'..o register i 5,4
the commissioners to see that the oath u dinisterear ii,e
man Catholic freeholders was properly a time let°
A that aclY
that perjury was not committed. "'t were all re- ore
men came up to be registered. They itna, theY. the
swear that they had all the same home' _ house, 17, the
the same profession, resided in the sou'
t_ f votinti „l'iit of
same street, and claimed the same rigut °- need P" ise i
sarse ground.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Stanley)
.d ocepr mo
that lie saw such a proceeding with horror sinned On go
and it had, more than anything else, ce fir. ,sture 0 re
teniloeguahlintylddi,w'pi
the opinion that it was the duty of the Ler' sifitb.,a
rid of all unnecessary oatbs.--(llear, bear ) teat PIO
speet to the oaths which tit
had( been propn•e .bat Ito
to abolish, lie would in the first place observe '

1 'ale the tame view of them as his hon. and learned friend
R'! :o said that he
fet sacrificed his conec'entious opinions and
to
when he assented to their being introduced int
as concession he catholic Rel of Bill. Now he regarded those oath,
!e did essi°os made to those who felt more strongly than
friend on the subject. He recollected that his right hon.
, elle
Present Governor of Ceylon, proposed in the
coe-mitt" t on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, that Ca
teoliee should be prevented voting in any matters con
ite.cted with the established religion of the country. That
p.ropesition was rejected by the house, as it u as not
t_onsidered that there was any danger in allowing Roman
Catholic's M vote in any matters, supported as the Cl.urcl
the
vote
the fetlings, the opinions, and the affections of
Ite gnat body of the people of England.—(Hear,u hear.)
ant °Wm be au osed that the people of Engirt
w. ere indifferent to the question, aye or no ; but still he
been
say he rsgretted exceedingly that such a question d
t.:eirlaii6netraoderuyretvd,hibeebl,ieving as be did that it was calculate
once raised, must convulse the coml-
. Iry.frotri one end to the other.—(A murmur of disappro-
!Dation fro
0 ki, ro the members round Mr. O'Connell.) He did
ll'list -:: Why the hon. members opposite should object to
were"f -eg his deliberate opinion, that if any sound reason,
rise -urn'llted for such a cry, the whole country would
T.,
It ‘1) ei, mane upon the subjecr.—(Hear, hear, hear.)e
and eras he contended, the bounden duty of a tv!sll
lii patient government to suppress the agitation of a
that
'°° that might lead to raise up religious differences,
Was Could
in an way excite Protestant jealousy, or that
end at all calculated to cause disunion between Protestants
o 'lnman Catholics, whom he desired to tee placed upon
IllaPual and proper footing.—(Hear, hear.) He himself
t ii the honour of representing a large county in this
Proper,tirr) and he believed that at least one half the landed
tle of
_ti etx, that county was at the present moment in the
Ro'n,:''n of Roman Catholics. He knew that every
len ''' Catholic in that county supported him at the
ing election, and Le was not the least afraid of los
tlis tt,he, "Pport of that large, opulent, and. most re
et, e -re body of voters on any future occasion, by .
tt:tun'YruPhelding the Protestant religion and the Pro
Ivitia, t -overnment of this country.—(Hear.) He stated
tot b'eln the least desire to give offence to any party, with-
conrid g Irlauenced by religious feelings,—for he
.did not
'Nest' " 44' to be a religious question, but rather
and
lonotlenief political prudence—that it was his fixed
,ari
hlishmeraule determination to support the Protestant Lsta-
My 'ent hoth in Church and State, and to resentnn
tcetteattete.
~18 that might be made to endanger it,
or ar„r "".Othee ley Roman Catholics or by any other classthe
hoie-eniloation ofpersons.—(Cbeers.) As far as
to -el Catholics residing • the county he bad the honour
thirtePbreseot were conceimiend, he could assure the house
their "' intention
or desire had ever been manifested o
h . Part that could lead to an inference. that
.they were,
S°tal'ttil tc the Protestant religion being the religion of tne
tti,heitoesitiolpttn:ehe contrary, they had never shown the least
abr. k from'' the full observance of either
II spirit
__ . in. .
as any
Otheu.l: the letter of this oath, and were as anxious
the ri ht r
r of
his Majesty's subjects to preserve. inviolate
and togd.t (I,' property as by law established in these realms,
and
-e"ttfti, disavow, and solemnly abjure any inten-
-1 n, "4 subverting the Established Church as settled by
%:113;111.,ear,.he-ar, hear.) It was his firm belief that it
that t, the wish of the Roman Catholics of
.this country
of th ue Protestant religion or the Protestant Government
he I. ei'e kingdoms should be in any way disturbed, and
ti, ~t't the strongest persuasion that those Roman Ca-
ZNch.tes who took this oath, did so without any evasion,
ocation, or mental reservation whatsoever.—(Hear,
hea's hear.) Although he did not agree with the
1:0' baronet opposite, that the Roman Catholic mein-
eirt ef that house had not a right freely to discuss questions
tth.4tine2 to the pluralities. of. the
.church, yet he conceived
the IheY were bound, in discussing questions relating to
oathe"e,reb, to remember the nature and solemnity of the
th); waich they had taken, and to abstain from doing any
ch'l,-,.g,the tendency of which would be to subvert the
g' 'eu establiehed by law—that was to change the reli.
I)4}t'lte°f the state, or destroy the union which subsisted
taut eeo church and state..;-(Hear, hear.) The Prates_
the e e+ church
allowed those who dissented from it
.
tesa'reetit and fullest exercise of their religious opinions;
odpolunhitosnosr,
se Sues being the case, those who entertained
eapP° With respect to this oath should state clear! and
thettlY their ob'ections to it or the alterations which
orairlt„enld Propose making in 'its form or übstance, in
their'dat the house might judge of the reasonableness
effect
any ettealre, and see whether it would be prudent. to
tetinn ange in it. Those who imagined that its interpre-
Pars tv„ati either ambiguous or doubtful were bound to
tbeiootiouhetb.e„ht :,it,ze.said Hishun and ,earned friend on the
i,e had objected to the aboli
doin: .The 401. freeholders but that be had advocated
Stanje 'ray with the oath'. Now, although he (Mr.
resisted I:upported Catholic emincipation, be strenuously.
redo
WO e Insertion of the clause in the Catholic Relief
ich
Inernber for tat
.directed against the hon. and. learned
the disfranchisu iin."--(llear.) He had also objected to
plan
for eprialyenint of the 4O freeholders,and approved
of the
th
,s•
Ptitte. But in giving
. . g Catholic clergy out of
his N the public
oPport to these three important
blheetttearelss he was actuated only by a desire to do an act of
'nit
eutleta justice which, in his conscience, he believed would
ter ~ _athe ultimate benefit of the state.—(Hear.) He
ilialid
,e wee free to confess, wish to make any sacrifice of
pia
°Wn conscience, and therefore, he should not like to
"'Pole
might upon others the taking of an oath
d which they
pa, de inconsistent with their sense of duty, orre-
thirt attt to their consc?ence. He was far from arguingssar
all the
hatoaths prescribed to bel taketinnawearnetntehcaet Sass
eitte4it this oath was part of a solemn etmhonsec
wife, opposed Ca-
Were into to ally the fears o
Wet: eotancipation in spite of the unruly oaths that
Dotc LPreased upon them, he must say that they would
gro "
justified in abolishing it without they had very good
els e or adopting such a
'' unds f course.—(Hear, hear.) For
nowl'art, he could not agree to any alteration of the oaths
the taken, and therefore he could not give his assent to
for proposition of the hon, and learned member for Dublin
the ?Pointing a select committee upon a subject which
was fully. competent to
ke'ch re.
judge of, without any
Peetiticlulry having taken place.—Hear, hear.) He re-
nrha that the proper course to be( pursued was, for those
pleaseedhjecteel to the oaths to state as minutely as they
Would ithe grounds of their objections, and then
the house
!
or era Re able to decide whether they should be abolished
itirZl'd•--.(Hear, hear.)
(Lath( etttl L. BULWER thought that it was really, be
whietiliat Say tidiculous, to require persons to swear
4ho°ld vote ettnll hands was confessed to be absurd. He
IVlr. SHELLavesuch oaths done away with.
oath w said •
little remarkable that the
Li ts se, said it was not a
I OWU erie gilled as to leave the party taking ;
.t to put
difference ustruction on it. There was, however, wade
that the
,s°l °Pinion on the subject ; but he contended
Was obr "artY taking italone could determine how far it
The igetory,
and
howle
f.
was not binding upon him.
the hroingbt hOn` Secit arf
it
the Colonies differed from
that th ' heron e ary for
for Oxford) in thinking
n r e itom2l j he
.mem er
tiqii 'fat to i7l Catholic members of
.t e h legislature bad
gthe t m ors-
t et ef til uterfere in questions relating to e p
':'
tl''',o bye church; but although this right was conceded "'At the ri
,_ point , g t hon. Secre ~ , o sa at
tary he forgot t y .
err they ee ~
to which their
the ereoce tn.' 'uouid atop, or the limits
4Were to ight go. How were they to know
when
Mr, sl,
,Pause or when they were to go on ?
44
441 LEV hadstated was, that when
es ilueatio, ---What he
church
41 br 'elating to the temporalities of the c
Retitle:tight for
teke • o ih,., , ward, the conduct of Roman Catholic
ei o to abjureAutl be consistent with the oath they had
elt as by all intention of subverting the Protestant
Air oyl4l, .
toe_
, slit,. established.—(Hrar' r.)
Ile
hon. gen-
heniali had 411. had not doubted that the right.
but what
"alp adMitted the right to interfere ,_
ernitttd wiped oe re
right hon. Secretary had
kr.
..M state
to au, that the
interference
might be carried.
the intettaie/o..tv far that
clearly fixed
P et ; e'r--.The words of the oath
taltink itt-1.--atioe th ' n to it. The party
the pr - swore tint at ought to be
intentiong've of subverting
....roteatatit C t he abjured all _
_ear.)
hentth. Seizit. hurch as by law eetablished.—(ll
the right
ye' Beeeete, contended that the view whicha
/ oa 'Y had taken ofthe terms of the oath was
Nitl troy,
on_
and
ed of the e• The hon. and learned gentleman corn-
preeatid that
theioterruptions
,which he had experien
ced,
the
whit ineten right hon, secretary had acted,
h (let sot fee with a species of courtesy and urbanity,.
eobbe 'l. hUL-reltienth distinguished him and for which
~
~. Seem y,
-C,,,eee.5...(A1, was bound to say he felt grate u f l and
eoli 'augh.) He could assert that the Roman
aufee e% of ir 1
e, -urehi e and b
d opinions so
e'antle - e to Cell had never expressed
me expeecto , t church as those that were con-
fro that
eref to be fon • PY members of that house, a
gen'oeli, ell found iu the numerous petitions that poured
t; itee„n
be eau against it. Let not the right hon.
ttlit uPey, 4:l:sued by
h the horrid fancies with respect
chttY,,Zhiela te, "e had before his eyes the avowed hoe-
the
.:. estAliote had
had declared against the
ii Diesenter wax by la ) The hostility of
gerdeel the ' W-3
i w.--(Hear. .
'lmam frome eafety oftte,eh more alarming, as far as re-
el°, "," the Roadtue church, than that to be appre-
pe.n.'og that an il Catholics ; and it was only that
tc.tion from a
body ra,nd learned civilian presented a
~re church and owissenters, stating the junction of
" iocipies . state to b at variance with the true
Alr
of Christie it e
lioaie • AIETIRIEN n Y.
Qin a of Dim had presented several petitions
.from
reh ; be. eters on the eubject of the established i
t b 0 denied that any wish was expressed in I

tVens that the union tetween church and state should be
lissolved.
Mr. SHELL did not speak of all Dissenter!. A retition
had, however, bee❑ presented that day from a body of
Dissenters, the pr..yer of which was for a separation such
as he had described.
After a few words from Mr. METHUEN,
Mr. COBBETT rai,l he was sorry such a motion as the
present had been made, as he had always been friendly to
the Roman Catholics. If .uch an inquiry as that proposed
far altering the oaths were granted, the country would be
agitated from one end to the other. The learned doctor
not surely know what was passing out of doors on
this subject, although he had himself altered his mind
with respect to the oath. The bon. member then read a
passage from a report of a speech of Dr. Lushington, in
which that hon. and learned gentleman said, " he thought
every member of that house was bound to uphold the
Protestant Church, and expressed a hope that the oath
which they had taken had made a deep impression on the
minds of Roma❑ Catholic gentlemen." He (Mr. C.) de-
precated their going into committee to do that which had
expelled the Stuart family from the throne, and lost James
11. his crown—namely, the attempt to put a Roman Ca-
tholic, or person not a Protestant, into the University 01
Oxford.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON said if the noble lord (Althorp)
would proiniee to bring the matter forward on some future
occasion, he would vote against the motion of the hon.
and learned member for Dublin, but otherwise he must
vote for it.

Mr. O'DWYER should of course vote for granting the
corn mittee.

Mr. LAMBERT Lore no ill will to the Protestant
church, nor did he wish to see it subverted. On the con-
trary, so long as a state religion was necessary in the
country, he devoutly wished it to be Protestant.—( Hear.)
All he desired was, that the objectionable part of this
oath should be erased from it, and he thought that if it
were to run thus—" I do promise and swear to be faith-
ful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, and that I
will uphold and support the constitution of the country as
by law established,"—it would not only be satisfactory,
but amply answer all the purposes which could render an
oath useful or desirable.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE was glad the question of the
oath was likely to be set at rest. At present such was
the dubious state in which Roman Catholics were placed,
that they were taunted with a construction of the oath
inconsistent with their principles when they voted on cer-
tain questions. For instance, on the subject of Irish
church temporalities, or any other subject connected with
the established church, they were placed in a disagreeable
and painful situation. Such was his (Mr. Johnstone's)
feeling on this point, that if any motion such as that for
the abolition of tithes, of which the hon. and learned
member had given notice, was brought forward before the
question was settled, he (ilr. J.) would consider it his
duty to move the previous question.
Mr. O'REILLY deeply regretted that this question
was brought forward by a Roman Catholic member of
the house.

Mr. HOWARD thought the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Dublin had shown a sound discretion in bringing
this question before the house. For his own part, as one
of that sect who had been excluded for three centuries
from that house, he felt it would be right that the oath
should be put in such terms, that in taking it they should
be above suspicion. As to what had been said as to the
cry of " No Popery," he could state, from his own know-
ledge of the country, that such a cry could not be easily
raised.

Mr. LEECH thought that the agitation of the question
would be prejudicial both to England and Ireland.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to reply, and said that with
regard to the remark made by the right lion, member for
Taniworth, that he (Mr. O'C.) bad offered to take the
oath of which he now complained, he would only say that
he had not only said he would take it, but Ind actually
taken it. But since then a controversy had arisen as to
the construction to be put upon that oath, which had
given him much uneasiness ; and he now pledged himself
not to let the matter rest till he bad it definitively settled
one way or other. The hon. member for Oxford bad
brought the very same arguments to bear upon this ques-
tion which be had brought against the Catholicßill, as an
infringement on the coronation oath. On both occasions
the hon. member had stated it as his opinion, that parties
were perjured. He (Mr. O'C.) was willing to leave it
so. He had no objection that in taking the oath in
question he should be put on the same footing with
George the Fourth, when he gave his assent to the
Catholic Reliefstßill. He agreed with the right hon.
Secretary far the Colonies in deprecating the practice of
multiplying appeals to government on every common occa-
sion. As to the meaning to be put on the oath, all that
Catholics said was, that they would not endeavour
to subvert the established church. They did not say that
they should continue it.—(A laugh.) But in legislating
on the temp..ralities of the church, lie denied that they
were legislating on the church itself. The church did
not depend on pounds, shillings, and pence. He would
not vote on any subject strictly connected with the
regulations of the church. He would not, for instance,
vote on the question of whether there should lie ten or
twenty bishops in Ireland; nor would he vote on the
question (if it c.,me to he mooted), of whether the bishops
should continue to sit in the House of Lords. The real
objection to his motion, however, was that pointed out by
the noble lord as to the appointment of aselect committee;
and he felt it to be so strong, that he did not know how
to meet it. He did not mean, however, to abandon the
question. He would, therefore, bring the question again
forward, in order to have it settled whether there should
be an oath for members at all, and whether there should
be a religious test of any kind ; and if so, if that religious
test should not be made applicable to Protestants as well
as Catholics. The course which he meant at present to
pursue was to ask leave of the house to withdraw his mo-
tion ; and he gave notice, that when the bill, of which
notice bad been given by the hon. member for Lancaster,
was brought forward, he would move for leave to insert a
clause for the abolition of all Test Oaths, not only for
members taking their seats in the house, but in all civil
situations. He pledged himself that, the question being
now fairly raised, he should not abandon it till it was
fairly set at rest.
After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, which
were inaudible, the motion was withdrawn.