The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-29 00:00:00

NELL'S right to express his own opinions

respecting the Catholic oath, let us at once
_ _

iroceed to the conclusion at which he arrives respect-

.ng what he believes to be the duty of a Catholic

I\i-ember of the House of Commons. After some

preliminary observations, he thus explains himself
" If I were one of the Catholic Members of either House,
I should not feel myself at liberty to support, by vote or by
speech, any resolution having for its declared object, or in-
volving, in a manifold statement of principles, the severance
of any portion of the church property for any purpose whatso-
ever ; whereas, on the other hand, if the King, Lords, and
Commons, in Parliament assembled, were, without our inter-
position, to effect, by law, such severance, and to declare, by
law, the property so severed to be available to the general
purt—S2S of the State; then, but not till then, should I feel
warranted to asst in its appropriation, without violation of our
oath, and our innumerable concurrent protestations and pledges,
equally precise and positive, and scarc;oy less solemn or less
binding than that oath."
Compare this statement with the very words of tlic
oath, which are now become as common as " house-
hold words" in the mouths of the expiring Tories

" I do swear that I will defend, to the utmost of my power,
the settlement of property within this realm, as established by
the laws ; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly
abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Esta-
blishment, as settled by law within this realm ; and I do so-
lemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which
I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the 'Pro-
testant religion, or Protestant Government, in the United
Kingdom." _ _

It will be seen at a glance, that Mr. MACDON-
NELL'S boasted construction of the oath differs not a
whit, except in point of time, from that held by
Mr. O'CONNELL, and the Catholic Members of the
House of Commons. Let but the King, Lords,
and Commons say the word, and Mr. MACDON-
NELL would " feel warranted in assisting in the
appropriation" of the Church property, without once
recalling to mind that he had sworn " never to exercise
any privilege," to which he was or might become en-
titled to weaken the Protestant religion_ The extreme
tenderness of this gentleman's conscience is evident
from the nicety with which he can split hairs in
theology. Just as if an Act passed without the concur-
rence of the Catholic Members could place the pro-
perty of the Church in a different position with regard to
them from what it was before—a presumption which
no really conscientious person could entertain for a
moment.

A great deal of useless and irritating discussion
might be prevented on this question, if the public
would only begin by regarding it in a common-sense
point of view. The object of the Legislature in 1829,
in framing the Catholic Oath, cannot be mistaken.
It was to obtain for the Church the same se-
curity from Roman Catholics which a belief in her
doctrines secures to her from Protestants—nothing
more. The Catholic Members, by taking the oath,
are bound to comport themselves in all re-
spects towards the Church, as if they professed
the Protestant religion. But farther than this, the
oath neither is nor can be binding ; for the sole object
of it is not to impose any restraint upon the Catholics
as Members of the House of Commons, entrusted with
the exercise of legislative functions, but simply to
guard against the influence of religious tenets hostile
to the welfare of the Church Establishment.
It must further be borne in mind, that the
clause in the oath which refers to the mainte-
nance of the present Church Establishment, presumes
the changes which might be effected detrimental
to the interests of the Protestant religion. The word
in the oath is "subvert,"—not change, amend, alter or
improve. Now it is quite clear that Roman Catholics
in assisting to render the Church Establishment more
efficient, observe the obligation imposed by the oath
much more fully than if they held their peace during
the time its interests were under consideration. The
whole context shows that the oath was framed with the
intention of guarding against a positive evil ; which evil
was presumed to emanate exclusively from a belief in
the fenets of the Church of Rome- Beyond this it
could have no meaning, as any Roman Catholic Mem-
ber of Parliament, by changing his religion, can no longer
be considered as bound by it. The oath is tendered
to Roman Catholics, not as men, but as religionists
professing a dangerous creed. Let them but " cleanse
their bosoms of the perilous stufF' imported from
Rome, and even Dr. PHILPOTTS himself will assure
them that they are free to co-operate with any
party on any question submitted to the judgment of the
House of Commons.
But why has all this senseless 'cry been raised about
Catholic Members and Catholic oaths ? Why is the
good faith of this body of our fellow-subjects now
called in question, when it is manifest that a disregard
for the obligations imposed by an oath would have ren-
dered the Emancipation Act of 1829 altogether
unnecessary ? Our Tory contemporaries, who gull
the dupes of bigotry with a cock and a bull story
about " Papal dispensations," and " keeping faith
with Heretics," ought to remember that the strongest
barrier ever raised against the entrance of Catholics
into Parliament, was an oath ; and, moreover, that
that oath was never infringed by any member of the
Catholic community. Did the English Hierarchy pay
but half the respect to vows made to GOD, which the
Catholic body have uniformly paid to oaths given for
the security of the Church, we should not now have
occasion to quarrel with the Tories about the appro-
priation of Church property.

The German Papers just received contain some
observations of no great import, on the late changes in
the British Cabinet, with some remarks on the present
state of the countries more immiediately connected with
Austria, which, if correct, are very gratifying. It

appears that the bad feeling engendered by the recent
misunderstanding between the Vorort of Switzerland
and the Imperial Court, is about to be abolished,
the Republic having offered to remove all existing
causes of offence, where the removal of such causes
can in no way compromise the dignity of the federal
Government. The state of i aly is represented as
prosperous ; and Naples wants nothing to make her
people contented, but the reduction of her standing
army. We suspect, however, that something more
than a reduction of the army would be necessary, to
meet all the wants, moral and political, of the Neapo-
litan population.
The advices from the East contained in the German
papers, represent the SULTAN as making still further
preparations for strzngthening 'his fleet, and increasing
the army. The SULTAN 111 Ls declared that he will
henceforth make it his chief s study to profit by the ex-
ample of the most powerful Extropean Sovereigns.
VIINNA, APRIL 18.—Five per oDent. 104 ; Four per Cent.
96; Bank Shares, I,34o.—Allgei nine Zeitung, April 23.

Almost every provincial pap er that reaches us con-
tains an exposure of the unprincipled means used to
get up and obtain signatures •to the addresses which
have been and still are sent r p to his MAJESTY, and
Sir ROBERT PEEL, against -Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
Resolution respecting the I Gish Church, commending
the measures of the' late Min istry, praising the wisdom
of Sir ROBERT, &c. The means resorted to for that
purpose are so notorious, that they hardly admit of
greater publicity ; but the Cox Iservatives are attaching
so much importance to these. Addresses, that we will
lay before our readers a specin len of Tory expedients,
which is taken at random frail i the papers and letters
we have recently received.

The Cambrian of Saturd 0.371% tist states that an address
to Sir R. PEEL had been b ken g of up at Swansea, pur-
porting to be from the " (entry, ~clergy, merchants, and
other inhabitants of Swar ikea, Neal 'h, and the vicinity,