The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

CATHOLIC OATHS.

Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition from Oswestry, praying
that the revenues of the Established Church might not be appro-
priated to any other than Protestant purposes, and also praying
the House to place further restrictions on Catholic Members
than the oaths they now took.
Mr. O'BRIEN supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. SHE IL defended the conduct of the Roman Catholic
Members of the House, and complained of the attacks that
had been made against them. The parties who thought the
oath of so little avail ought, and he challenged them, to bring
in a Bill declaratory of its meaning.
Sir R. BATE SON said that had he been a Roman Ca-
tholic, and had taken such an oath as they did, he could not
conscientiously have given such a vote as they had done upon
the question of the Irish Church.
Mr. FINN opposed the petition.
Mr. A. JOHNSTONE thought the oath ought to be
erased from the Statute-Book. If the question was
again brought forward, he should consider it his duty
to state his opinions upon the • subject openly and
fearlessly, without any consideration of party. He called
upon the Honourable Member for Kerry to bring forward
any accusation he might have against him, and he would
answer it.—(Cheers.) Was he to be taunted in this way
every time he stood up to address the House ?—( Hear, hear. )
He would meet any charge that could be brought forward,
and was most anxious that it should be fairly made and
openly met.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Did the Honourable Member the
justice to say that when he brought forward his motion he did
so in language most courteous to those who differed from him
in religious opinions, and in reference to the solemn ob-
ligation of an oath, which he (Mr. O'Connell) took in
the sense already described ; and had the House come to any
other decision upon the meaning of that oath, he would have
;iemained beyond that bar as be had done for years before.
No did not admire the theology of the Hon. Member for
London'TY, who might be a very good country gentleman, but
no theologian ; he had insinuated perjury to the Catholics, blit
the petition decfc;‘.'d the question at once, for it protested
against the Catholio availing himself of any privilege to
weaken the Protestant
religion. Did they consider the
right of voting in this House a privilege? Or were reve-
nues and religion synonymoii., ? (Hear, hear.) Would
the Protestant religion be at an end; if the entire revenues of
the Protestant Church were taken away ? He knew there was
no connection between Catholic religion and ;;Lie Revenue ; but
the distinction upon which he stood was, that revenues
were not religion, and religion not revenues. He would not
vote for cutting down the 39 articles to 19 as the Ameri-
cans had ; that was their own affair ; but when they
came to revenues he must tell them that the revenues
encumbered their religion. If the Hon. Members who were
opposed to his sentiments did not bring in a Bill upon this
subject, he would do so himself.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL recommended that a discussion
of this sort should be closed.
Mr. ORMSBY GORE regretted that any petition should
be brought forward by him which militated against the re-
commendation of the Noble Lord. He had various estates
in Ireland ; and he could state, that he never made any distinc-
tion between the Protestant and Catholic tenant.
Mr. O'CONNELL explained; and after a few words from
Mr. D. ROCHE, the petition was laid on the table.