The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-10 00:00:00

----
however, the motion for the committee would be with-

drawn.

Mr. Baring, Mr. Wathin, and Mr. Hodgson having de-
clared their willingness to defend their conduct when and

wherever it was called in question,
Sir M. PETO said, after the kind remarks of the two
right hon. gentlemen, he could not hesitate to withdraw
his motion. Ile could not express how deeply he felt the
kind observations that had been made respecting him by
the right hon. gentleman the leader of the house.
The motion was then by leave withdrawn, so also was
the amendment of Mr. Whatman.

OATIIS AND OFFICES BILL.
In committee on the Oaths and Offices Bill,

Mr. CANDLISH moved, by way of amendment, the

omission of those portions of the measure which proposed
to allow the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to be a member

of the Roman Catholic faith. .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right
hon. gentleman the member for the City has observed that
we all know what is the matter with Ireland. I can assure
him, so far as I am concerned, that I do not share in that
knowledge. 1 know he is an able man, and must be a
favoured man if he is a master of the causes which afflict
that country. I think the debate of this evening must have

given them all reason to feel that there is some truth in the
observations I am making, for at this moment there is a
conspiracy constantly breaking out, for the cause of which
no one has given an authentic reason, which is not indi-
genous, which is said to be imported, and which is assisted,
if it conies from the other side of the Atlantic, by the sym-
pathies of those who formerly went from Ireland. But
there is no doubt that certain effects are produced by these
extraneous agencies, which are extremely perplexing and
inconvenient, not only to those who govern but to those

who are governed, and I am surprised that the right hon.

gentleman should have announced so distinctly that we are
all acquainted with the causes of the discontent which ex-
ist in that country, and which deserves the deepest consi-
deration. The course of the debate has thrown some light

upon that matter. We have had considerable references
made to the conspiracy which is now so prevalent in Ire-
land, and the cause of that has been attributed to the Catho-
lic priesthood. Ido not want to go into any detail on that
subject or to divert attention from the simple matter before
us ; but I cannot allow the observations which I have heard
charging sympathy and connivance with the Fenian insur-
rection to the Roman Catholic priesthood, without rising
and stating, as a Minister of the Crown, that from all our
experience in regard to this unfortunate conspiracy, and from
what is occurring at this moment, we have no cause to feel

any distrust of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic priesthood.
I can truly state that their sympathy with the Crown
and the interests of England, that the information which
they have given, that the counsels they have offered, that
the valuable knowledge for which we are indebted to
them, have greatly assisted us in the management of
affairs of extreme difficulty, and although we have been
obliged to have recourse to severity—l trust the country
will feel that it has not been extreme severity—that it has
been tempered with discretion. (Hear, hear.) Now, with
regard to the question before us, it is very important to
distinguish between the nature of things which seem to be
similar, but which are distinct. The Roman Catholic
Emancipation Act was a statesmanlike settlement, adapted
to the time and circumstances with which former statesmen
had to deal. The act was no doubt founded partly upon

principle, and partly upon expediency of the moment and
requirement of the time. But although I look on that
arrangement to have been an arrangement of very wise and
considerate men, 1 do not feel that we are foreclosed from
considering the policy under which that arrangement was
recommended. With regard to the two offices which are
involved in this discussion, I believe, from what I have
heard, that some years ago people of great authority and
much connected with the settlement of these affairs, that

including the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the
arrangement then made was an error, and that was a
misconception which confounded that office with the office
of Lord Chancellor of England. (Hear.) The Lord Chan-
cellor of England is placed in a peculiar position with re -
gard to the church. He has great control over its patron-
age, and is the peculiar adviser of the Crown in all
questions connected with the dispensation of church
patronage. There is, therefore, very good reason that,
we would maintain that the constitution of this country
should be Protestant, the office of Lord Chancellor of
England should bo Protestant also ; but there is no-
thing in the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland to pre-
vent its being held by a Roman Catholic. The office is
in no way connected with the dispensation of church
patronage, nor does it hold those peculiar relations
with the established church which would form a
valid objection. It is simply the highest
office, the
greatest prize that is open to the legal profession in Ire-
land, and therefore I think it desirable that every Irish-
man, whatever might bo his religion, should have it open
to his ambition. But I thin there is a great difference be-
tween the offices of Lord-Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor
of Ireland, and that even if there were not such an absolute
distinction it would still be unwise and indiscret in the
Roman Catholics to press further the throwing open of this
office. I think that such a line of conduct would only re-
vive prejudices awl call back animosities which we all hope
have passed away, because the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland
is the representative of a sovereign who holds the crown
by a peculiar religious tenure, and such being the case the
Lord-Lieutenant is placed in very peculiar relations with
the Protestant Church in Ireland. I think, then, that to
insist on the throwing open of this office would be a course
most unwise, and that it would create great distrust and
dissatisfaction amongst the people of this country, whilst
at the same time it would be a mere shadow to be obtained
at much loss to those who contended for it. I think, there-
fore, that the course taken by my noble friend, the Secre-
tary for Ireland, was a discreet and wise one, one that can
be defended upon principle; and that if we cross the line
which he lays down we shall create such distrust and alarm
amongst the people of this country as will be a great ob-
stacle and discouragement to those feelings which it has
always been our object to foster. I think that instead of
producing that equality of position and sentiment which is
sought by all of us, its tendency would be to produce some-
thing which would be entirely the reverse. (Hear, hear.)
I shall therefore support the views of my noble friend, as
expressed in the amendment. lam quite prepared to open
the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland to Roman Catholics
because I see no reason why differences of religion should
be an obstacle to the acquirement of that office ; but at the
same time I cannot support the other object of this bill. I
think we shall be acting a wise and discreet part in accept-
ing the amendment. (Cheers from both sides of the house.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—The right hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer has spoken on this subject with a modera-
tion, and a studious and unaffected concern for the feel-
ings of the people of Ireland which did him honour ; but
at the same time it must be obvious to the house that the
argumentative portion of his speech fails entirely of its ob-
ject. To use an old but familiar illustration, "his wheels
draw heavily." (Hear, hear.) I think it is on very nar-
row grounds that he offers opposition to the most important
portion of the bill. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man began by saying that he did not pretend to know the
sources of all the evils of Ireland, and it would be pre-
sumptuous in me to contradict him, or to assert for myself
any superiority in such knowledge. But although we
may not be able as yet to heal the wounds of Ireland—
although we may not as yet even have probed them to the
bottom, yet the skilful physician, when dealing with the
constitution of the ;patient, may, pending the ultimate
cure, pursue such mitigating and soothing methods
as must afford him good grounds for hoping for the ulti-
mately successful treatment of the case. (Hear, hear.)
Now, admitting frankly the difficulties which have been
stated by the right hon. gentleman, yet I must observe
that if we observe the principles of simple justice we may,
with reference to the evils of Ireland, very much assuage
irritation and greatly promote an ultimate cure. The
right hon. gentleman draws a distinction between the
offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland
—indeed, with respect to the latter and to repeat the com-
plaint of the hon. member for Armagh, the noble lord the
Secretary for Ireland has submitted to a frightful degra-
dation in throwing open the offices to Roman Catholics.
But the distinction drawn by the right hon. gentleman is
that the Lord Lieutenant holds a peculiar position with
respect to the patronage of the Church. Now it should
be observed that my noble friend proposes to divest
the Lord Lieutenant of all concern in the ecclesiastical
patronage, and even if he did not there would not remain
to the Lord-Lieutenant a shadow of responsibility, because
as is well known, he is completely sheltered by the Home
Secretary, a Minister of the Crown, in whose case, be it
remembered, there is no reason why the office should not
be filled .by a Roman Catholic. We are told the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland is the representative of the Crown ' •
and so he is in all matters of ceremonial, courts, and draw
mg-rooms, and all similar public occasions when the ladies
aro presented to hitnovith various functions of that descrip-
tion. (A laugh). But his more important functions are
controlled by the Home Secretary, who, as I said before,
may be a Roman Catholic. Well, but the main reason given
by the right hon. gentleman is this—he thinks that the
motion of my hon. friend will revive prejudices and excite
animosities and my hon. friend behind me concurs in that
sentiment. Let me take this opportunity of asNus:uhtie:itnnugtlioianiiils:
y
hon. friend that most painful it would be to me if in sui
pwol ri
which
eg i thisho
holdsbilla shouldstich
justb e
reverence;
bu
those i t
told that we are to apply in Ireland principles different
from those which rule in England and Scotland I demur,
and say we should apply the same principle, namely' ht
in as far as may be consistent with the unity of the empire
you should consult, in framing your laws for each country,
the character, dispositions. and convictions of the people of
that country. (Loud cheers.) And I respectfully assure
my hon. friend that in my belief the best way is to follow
that principle firmly and conscientiously, and consistently
with the principles of civil justice is the way to confirm
and strengthen, not to weaken our institutions, whilst on
the other hand the pursuit of a different policy would be
the sure way to revive prejudice and to create animosities.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says that this
motion will revive prejudices, but where? In Ireland ?
Is it a good reason to give the majority of the people
for withholding their civil rights that the minority say
their animosities will be awakened and their prejudices
revived? I think we can forego our prejudices on this