The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

efficient agents in putting it down were the Catholic
clergy. At a recent civic banquet in Dublin the Lord
Lieutenant had taken occasion to express his acknowledg-
ments for the great assistance the Catholic clergy rendered
to the Government. During the last 30 years they had
had many Roman Catholics filling the highest offices in
Ireland, and it would be slander to say that on any occa-
sien they had been unfaithful to the Queen or Constitu-
tion. He did not think any security was required
against their disloyalty. Those fears which had been
expressed in 1829 had proved entirely baseless. In
tho colonies, since 1856, every obnoxious oath had been
abolished, and the present practice had the sanction of all
well-thinking persons. He would refer to Canada.
Was such an oath required there ? It was not ; and
Catholics and Protestants mixed together in the Assembly
on terms of perfect equality. It was the same in Australia,
and now in no portion of the empire but at home was any
peculiar oath required. The ground he took was this—that
Roman. Catholics had a right to be placed on terms of civil
equality with their fellow-citizens. (Hear.) He held that
principle so valuable, that he should bring this motion for-
ward again and again till it proved successful. His present
application was, that the house should go into committee in
order to enable him to introduce a bill such as he had men-
tioned. The whole of the oaths he had stated ought to
be expunged. As long as there was a separate oath they
stood apart as a separate body. He wished for entire poli-
tical unity amongst all the members of that house, and that
was the sole object he wished to accomplish. He begged
to move that this house do resolve itself into a committee,
to consider the act 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, in relation to the oath
thereby required to be taken and subscribed, instead of the
oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration.
Mr. FAGAN seconded the motion.
Mr. ADAMS saw no reason for this motion, because he
looked upon it as a breach of faith as regarded the compact
entered mto when Catholic emancipation was granted be-
tween the Irish Catholics and the Parliament of this coun-
try, and he doubted very much whether the Irish Catholics
were, as a body, favourable to this motion. If the fact were
otherwise, why was not the table covered with petitions in
support of the motion of the right hon. gentleman ?
Mr. FORTESCUE, as a Protestant member, rose to ex-
press his entire concurrence in the motion of his right hon.
friend (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald). He denied that the oath in
question was a bargain or a compact obliging the Roman
Catholics not to ask for its repeal in after years. As a
Protestant magistrate, he felt ashamed of being obliged to
put the oath in question to Roman Catholic friends, when
they were called to the magisterial bench.

11r. WHITESIDE said the argument of the hon. gen-
tleman went against all oaths, which were always re-
garded as having a binding effect, even in Pagan times.
He regretted that this motion had been brought forward
at this time, or indeed at any time, and he thought it
would be wise in Roman Catholic gentlemen to allow
matters of this kind to remain for ever buried in oblivion.
He deprecated this effort to get rid of an obligation under
whichthe hon. gentleman and other members of the Catholic
body were enabled to obtain a position in that house, and
places of distinction out of it, and which they willingly as-
sented to. He appealed to every honourable gentleman,
whether it was to be supposed that those who benefited by
the carrying of the question of Catholic Emancipation
should now turn round, and repudiate those very argu-
ments which Grattan and Plunket had used to induce
Parliament to accede to the passing of that measure.
(Bear, hear.) The right honourable and learned gen-
tleman then quoted passages from the oath which had
been proposed to be enacted by Grattan, and which
he said was of a more stringent character than
the oath which was introduced into the bill which
was passed. In his speech in 1813,. Mr. Plunket said the
oath proposed to be taken by Roman Catholics went to
deny that they acknowledged the spiritual and temporal
authority of the Pope within these realms. He therefore
answered the objection of the hon. and learned gentleman
by saying that Grattan and Plunket relied upon an oath
which was substantially the same as the oath which had
now to be taken, so far as the Church was concerned. Why,
again, should any gentleman refuse to respect the settle-
ment of property ? (Hear, hear.) Sir R. Peel said the
words, the settlement of property," alluded to the set-
tlement made by Charles 11. in 1660. The Roman Catho-
lie, said R. Peel, on being relieved from his disabilities,
was bound to acquiesce in the settlement of property, and
to respect it, and it was for that reason he said that the
words were introduced into the oath in the bill of 1829.
The noble lord (Lord John Bussell) was opposed to any
alteration in the oath after the settlement of the Ca-
tholic claims, which, ho remarked, after a struggle of
so many years, had been effected. The right hon. and
learned gentleman then quoted further from the speeches of
Sir R. Peel, as to the importance of the oath introduced in
the bill of 1829, and said, that if the argument had been
then used, the oath was dcomparatively little moment, and
the Act of Emancipation would not have been passed. As
to the power of excommunication on the part of the Pope,
he believed that that eminent personage, if he still pre-
sided at Rome—(laughter)—although he did not now pre-
tend to the power of excommunicating princes, he did still
exercise that power as regarded private individuals. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Cork (Mr. Fagan) had ad-
mitted that the oath he had taken as a Catholic had re-
strained him from doing or proposing certain things as
regarded the Protestant religion. Now a similar feeling,
he knew, operated
.in the minds of many other Roman
Catholics as well as on the hon. member for Cork, and
this conscientious feeling sustained the opinions which
had been expressed by Grattan and by Plunket,
and justified the confidence they expressed in the
respect with which Roman Catholics would regard
that oath. It had been said that the Roman Catholic)
people of Ireland and the clergy never assented to the oath,
Now after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill,
the Irish archbishops and bishops assembled in conclave,
and issued a pastoral declaring that the Government was
entitled to their confidence and affection who had passed
that bill, and raised the Roman Catholic people from their
prostrate condition. There had been no compromise of the
interests of the Roman Catholic people, nor was there any-
thing in the oath which could not be fairly and conscien-
tiously taken by Roman Catholics, even according to the
testimony of the Roman Catholic clergy. He opposed.it,
not in any spirit of bigotry, but on this distinct ground,
that in his opinion the oath contained a record of the con-
ditions upon which emancipation was granted, and, whether
it was or was not efficient for the purpose for which it was
destined, it was the cordial recognition by Parliament of
the grounds upon which emancipation had been carried. He
trusted the oath would not be disturbed by those who wished
to preserve religious peace and tranquillity.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the view he took on this
question was, that he wished the house to reflect whether
it was not fit from time to time to consider the oaths which
were taken, for the purpose of seeing whether there were
any parts of them insulting to a section of the house, or
whether there were not portions which ;might be re-
altered without removing any security whatever. Every-
body must admit that if there were parts of an oath by
which members bind themselves in that house, by which
men holding office bind themselves on entering their ap-
pointments, which were liable to objections, it was not wise
on the part of the legislature to retain those objectionable
parts. (Hear, hear.) TM right hon. gentleman opposite
(Mr. Whiteside) seemed to think that his right hon. friend
(Mr. Fitzgerald) had wantonly and uselessly introduced
the subject to the attention of the house; but the same
principle was introduced last year. In the case of the
Jews Bill, the Jews had no objection to renounce James
11., and the person falsely calling himself James 111.,
or any of his descendants who might be living and
' might attempt to disturb the throne of Queen Victoria ; but
it was not for the sake of the Jew that they left out all
those parts of the :oath.l They left them out because,
as Protestants, they thought they were unnecessary. They
thought it was somewhat of a profanation to come and
make an oath which was a mere mockery and applied to
things that did not exist, and accordingly they did shorten
the oath with the very general assent of the house. That
task having been successfully accomplished, his right hon.
friend said, " You have done this, but there is still a part
of your fellow-subjects who take an oath to portions of
which they strongly object." With the view he took of
the subject, and seeing that this question must be deter-
mined, not by 31 Catholic members, but by the whole 654
members of the house, he was not in the least degree affected
by the argument started by an hon. and learned gentleman
who spoke early in the debate, and which was assented to
by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, that there was
a compact on the part of the Roman Catholics. Were it a
compact or no compact, still nothing was to prevent the
Legislature altering an oath, if theycould make it a simpler
oath, one by which they could bind themselves to all that
was requisite, but without any confusion or ambiguity.
There was no reason why the wisdom of Parliament should
not make such an alteration. When the act of 1829 re-
ceived the Royal assent in Parliament, both Sir R. Peel
and the Duke of Wellington stated over and over again
that they might have pursued one of two courses—the one
was to negotiate with the Roman Catholics ; to ask what
oath they were willing to take; to what securities they
would bind themselves, and to frame the measure upon the
result of the negotiations thus made. But Sir R. Peel said
that was an unwise mode of proceeding; that there was
another mode which was this, that Parliament should con-
sider the whole subject, and at the same time consider
what was due to the Roman Catholic people of this
country, and what was due for the real security of their
Protestant institutions, and frame a measure accord-
That was the principle on which they
framedhouse.—(hear,
their measure and presented it for the approval of
the hear)—and surely that did away alto-
gether with the idea of any compact with the Roman Ca-
tholics. (Hear, hear.) Now then, let them, as Protestants,
it
consider whetherwas wise to keep those four articles of
his
the oath to which
right hon. friend had alluded. The
right hon. gentleman
slightly over the first thea. k.ttorney-General passed rather
they abjured the doctrineletchof the oath, to the effect that
mighat,t princes deprived or excom-
municated by the Pope ;
anabzhdeposed or lawfully mur-
dered by their subjects
ht hon. gentleman
quoted a passage from a speech ofesri
Robert Peel, inwhich
he said that to ask the Roman Catholics, ltohaotf
Baht it offensiveanartic
faith, that heretics might bemurderedri,
it should be omitted. But if it was
omit passages which were offensive, 16
he must call the time
to
atten-
tion of the house to another passage in the oath
Roman Catholic member is required to declare thhwilticre a
is not
an article of his faith and ho does reje2t and abjure thedoc
trine that princes excommunicated by the Pope might be
lawfully murdered by their subjects or by any other person
whatsoever. He maintained that it was quite unnecessary to
call upon any Roman Catholic to swear that he abjured
such a doctrine; and if it was unnecessary, then it was no
security, and was only a gratuitous insult which they ought
not to keep in the oath unless there be some valid reason.
Then, again, the Roman Catholics were called upon to swear
they would defend to the utmost of their power the settlement
of property as established by law in these realms. He
thought this was a very needless declaration, but it was quite
unimportant whether it was left in or struck out. The next
article was as follows :—" I disavow any intention to subvert
the present Church Establishment, as settled by law in
these realms." This he thought was certainly framed to
reconcile the opinion of Protestants in the year 1829, when
the oath was copied, or made up or copied from former
oaths ; but he did not see why they should not be a little
wiser than the Protestants of 1829. He remembered per-
fectly well,(on that occasion, being summoned to a meeting
at the house of Sir Francis Burdett, where for 14 years
they had' been defending the cause of the Roman Catholics.
the They were asked to conrdefithether they could assent to
proposal of the-Government of that day; and he re-
membered Lord Althorp left that meeting, charged with a
message to Sir Robert Peel, to ask for some change • in the