The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-16 00:00:00

I this bill, Sir F. THESIGEE and Mr. BENTINCK presented that when the noble lord at the head of the Government
petitions against the bill. rose for the purpose of answering him, he would have
The !Jou e then went into committee. ' exulained why it was that he objected to' the amend-
On clause 1, substituting one oath fur the present ment. The noble lord ought perfectly to miderstand
oaths of euprernaey and abjuration. that the r aeon why this amendment was proposed was
Mr. DEASY moved that the words ecclesiast:cel or for the purpose of rendering the oath one which it was
spiritual'' should be omitted, and the words " temporal possible for Remelt Catholic gentlemen to take. It was
or civil" inserted. His object was to get rid of the die- quite clear that Roman Catholics did not deny that the
tinctien that at present existed between the Rotnan Pope " has, or ought to have, jurisdiction, power, pre.
Catholic and the Protestant members when they appeared eminence, and authority ecclesiastical and spiritual with-
at the table of that house. It was time to abolish the in this realm." Therefore, in order to have one form of
necetsity of a•king every man who agreed in the broad , oath which the Roman Catholic might take as well as the
principles; of Christianity to which church he belonged. Protestant, it was necessary to divest the oath of there
The noble bed at the head of the Government had words, they being a recognition of the supremacy of the
omitted two important passages from the Protestant ' Crown, which was denied by the Roman Catholic. Let
oath, but retained them for those who belonged to the them see what was involved in this question, which might
Roman Oath lic Church, which was as offensive to one as to become a serious one. Mr. Roebuck said it was a lie to say
the oth'r when it was considered they implied a rnis- i that the Pope has not spiritual jurisdiction within this
trust of the loyalty and good faith of the It man Catho- realm, and he referred to a movement called papal ag-
lic member'. If this bill passed in its present shape it gression, by which some time ago the Pope endeavoured
would amount to a legislative enactment that the alter a- to parcel out this kingdom into bishoprios. Now, his
tin was unnecessarf -for Prote.tante, because it placed hen, and learned was entirely mistaken, as it appeared
implicit faith and confidence in the loyalty and good i to him, in his understanding of the oath. In the first year
faith of Protestants, but that it did not in those of of the reign of Queen E izabeth this oath was introduced
Roman Cathol cs. He respectfully and earnest'y j for the purpose of upholding the supremacy of the crown
protested against arty such distinction between' and the act said it was introduced to the intent " that
the members of the two churches, and he asked the Go• all usurped and foreign power and authority, dpiritaal
vernment to place all on an equality of footing, and ex- and temporal, may for ever be extinguished, and never
act from all who carne to that house one text and one used in this realm;" and then it enacted "that no foreign
text only —that of promising allegiance to her Majesty power shall use, enjoy, or exercise any jurisdiction,
and to continue it in the proper line f succession. The power, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or
learned genilernan proccede tto argue that there was no- ecclesiastical, within this realm." There was the e xplicit
thing to feet. from Rornati Catholics, and again loudly declaration of the supremacy of the Crown, not estate-
protested against the inklividioue distinction that fished for tee first time, because on the highest authority
this bill would make between Roman Catholics he stated that was an essential point of the constitution of
and Protestants, He (Mr. Deasy) thought the this country from the earliest times. But it was felt that
clause relative to the act of settlement ought to be thereshould bean explieitdeclarationagainstthe innovatiesi
struck cut of the Roman Catholic oath, as well as that of any foreign authority. Then fol owed theoath of supre-
part, having' reference te the English Church. The hon. macy, and treond up with that declaration of supremacy,if
gentlemen, after referring to the objections that he might use such an expression, was the declaration
were at first urged against the admission of Roman that the Queen was supreme in all spiritual as in tempo-
Catholics to-Parliament, and the opinion of the late raj matters, and then it went on to state that " no fo-
Sir R. Peel in favour of that privilege, said that reign prince bath or ought to have any power eeclesias-
the Parliament of that time did not understand tical or spiritual within this realm." Now, what was the
or intend that the oath to be administered to Roman fair construction of an oath framed in that particular
Catholic members was ever intended as a security manner at that particular time. Did it mean to say that
against the E-tablishel Church. The Established de facto the Pope had no jurisdiction, pre-eminence, or
Church had not derived any particular benefit or danger authority ; or did it declare, that according to the con-
as was anticipated from the Roman Catholics. The an- etitution be had no such authority ? Therefore; so far as
ticipated dangers had proved visionary, and the for- his hon. and learned friend's coastructioa went, he was
midable enemies of the Established Church in,. that happy to relieve his conscience, if he would be relieved
house were not Roman Catholic members, who from the painful impression of having-sworn to a lie.
were fe A in number, and weak in intelligence, (Laughter.) This declaration embodie I a principle that
but the gentlemen who sat on the back benches, "no foreign prince or potentate was legal authority in this
who were connected with England and Scot- realm." Mr, Deasy, without any explanation of his reit-
land, the representatives of Dissenters, the heredi- ions, proposed to omit the words "ecclesiastical or spi-
tary descendants of the Puritans, who opposed all ritual." He (Sir F. Thesiger)appealed to the Protestant
Church endowments. No restrictions were taken metnbers of the house—not that he wished to excite any
from them, and he saw no reason why they should be unpleasant religious feeling, but he appealed to them, as
taken from Roman Catholic members, Toe real secu- be considered these declarations to be the keystoee of the
city for the Established Church should be found in the arch of Protestant supremacy in this country—whether
attachment of the people. The oath ought not to be kept they would allow it to be swept away. But that was not the
as a trap for consciences or a topic of angry discussion, worst, because the bon. and learned gentleman proposed
&c., but the Government ought to adopt one not merely to omit those words, but to insert the words
of two courses, either by a legislative declaration, "temporal or civil." They would thereby virtually ad-
to define the sense in which the oath should be taken, mit that a foreign potentate had ecclesiastical and epi-
but he thought it would be a difficulty to get Parlia- ritual authority. (Hear.) In 1822, when it was proposed
anent to agree on that, or to abrogate the oath altoge- to introduce the words " temporal or civil," Sir R. Peel
ther, and put al: the members on the same footing. Ho said he would infinitely prefer that there should be no
therefore asked the house to agree to his amendment, oath at all ; because it was impossible to admit those
Lord PALMERSTON said that he hoped through- words without recognising spiritual authority. Teen, if
out the discussion all would studiously avoid entering the Protestant was not disposed to give up this portion
into religious disquisitions, such as had on former occa- of the oath which he must consider as of such great im-
sions attended debates of this character. (Hear.) He portance, was there any reason why the Roman Catholio
considered it was desirable it practicable that there should should ask that the settlement of 1829 should be in the
be but one oath to be taken by all the members of that stightest manner interfered with! It was perfectly clear
house, and that there were parts of the Roman Catholic that that oath was one of the securities which were taken
oath that ha lhe the power of altering he should not at the time, and Sir R. Peel said—" It is an oath to
wish to retain. (Hear, hear.) The question was not which the Roman cathelice can have no valid or con-
whether the house should place the Roman Catholics in scientious objection, and which is as great a security as
a different position from Protestants, but whether in an oath can give, that the difference in religious faith
altering the oath as regards the latter, alteration should will not affect their allegiance to the King, or their caps•
be made in the oath that would relieve the Jews, city for civil service." And the Roman Catholic arch-
and he submitted to the Roman Catholic mem- bishops and bishops in their pastoral letter, issued at that
here that the course they were pursuing was not likely time, said, " Since we last addressed you a great and
to obtain what they desired, and he appealed to them, beneficial and healing measure has been enacted by the
whether it was worth their while to throw impediments legislature for your relief. We trust that your feelings
in the way of the bill, and prevent its passing, because ou this subject are in unison with our own, and that a
they could not obtain what they at present desired, steady attachment to the laws and constitution of your
Without entering into a discussion of the particular country will be manifested in your conduct." So that at
parts of the oath referred to, he based his opposition that time every one was satisfied with what was done.

on the broad ground that it was mixing up in one
discussion subjects very different in their nature. Any
attempt to alter the Roman Catholic oath new would
end in the fa lure of the measure under consideration,
and he should therefore content himself with resting his
opposition on the broad ground he had mentioned,
and he hoped that the honourable and learned mem-
ber would not persevere in taking the sense
of the house on this question ; but that should
he feel it to be his duty to divide, he (Lord Palmerston)
hoped the house would- not agree to the amendment.
He, however, did not consider that hon. members if they
voted against the amendment would be pledging them-
selves not to vote in favour of an alteration of the
Roman Catholic oath if brought before the consideration
of the
Mr. H. DRUMMOND was of opinion that it was
better to rely on the confidence of men than bind them
by oaths. What the house had to prevent was the as-

And when the president of the Board of Control at a sub-
sequent time proposed another furm of oath, the noble
lord the member for London said he thought it not wise
to disturb the settlement which after so touch considera-
tion had been come to. Now there was an assumption of
ecclesiastic and spiritual, if not of temporal authority, in
the endeavour that was made on the part of the P.=pe to
divide this country into districts. It was quite true that
the measure that was passed to prevent the aggression
was not perfectly satisfactory, but it had some effect in
checking that aggression. It they were to adopt this
amendment it would be admitting the Pope was justified
in that act of aggression. He objected to this amendment,
in the first place, because it interfered with the supre-
macy of the Crown, in the next place, because it would
amount to a virtual admission of the Pope's supremacy,
and in the third place, because it would amount to a nano•
tion of the aggression which the Pope had made.
Mr. B. HOPE said he looked upon the claim of the

sumption of temporal power by tie Roman Catholic
priests, and he thought that was to be done by instruct
iog the people. It was the duty of the Roman Catholic
laity to teach the priests their duty, as much as it was
the latter to teach the former. With the spread of the
Bible he did not fear the assumption of temporal power
by the present law. He thought this a fitting time to
make the alteration asked.

Jews as an abstract necessity, as a mathematical, so to
speak, demand of justice. It was at no little sacrifice of
feeling that he could not act with the hon. and learned
member for Stamford on this occasion. He regarded the
question in an aspect in which it had not been regarded
by any member—an aspect in which, as an honest and
sincere member of the Church of England, he had a right
to regard it. "He must say the noble lord at the head of

the Government had paid but a small compliment to the
Protestants of England by requiring of members of the
Established Church and the Jews one form of oath, and
requiring of Roman Catholics another. It was like the
inscription which used to be written over a certain door--
"A Jew, a Turk, an infidel, an atheist,
May enter here, but not a papist."
(Laughter.) The measure was a retrograde one--e re-
actionary measure from that Act of Toleration which in
1829 was extorted by fear and not conceded from con.
viction ; for it was saying that if these Roman Catholics
would not take the oaths thus octroye to then; they
should not enter at all. (Hear.) If through the bill one
or two Jews found their way into the house, it would
be at the expense of an injury inflicted upon millions of
their fellow-countrymen. The harm the bill would do,
in short, would be greater than the benefit. It was op-
posed to civil freedom, and to that toleration which, all
a churchman, he hal at heart. (Divide.) The cause of
toleration would not profit by a bill which would only
perpetuate religious animosities, and year after year taey
must loos forward to a recurrence of similar questions.
Mr. G. H. MOORE thought the very formidable dif-
ference of opinion which seemed to (-Kist between Mr.
Roebuck and Sir F.Thesiger formed "a very pretty quarrel
as it stood ;" and it ought to be a warning to hon. gen-
tlemen against being too dogmatic on the oath taken by
others, when they were obliged to resort to such elabo-
rate casuistry to defend that taken by themselves.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the injury and insult
which it was supposed would be inflicted on catholio
members by having a special oath imposed on them—that
affected him little. If Parliament in its wisdom decided
that Jews and Protestants should mike use of one com-
mon formulary, and that another oath should be pro.
vided for Catholics, they would accept the difference as
a distinction. (" Hear," and a laugh.) In fact, the
only favour that he was inclined to ask would be that
the Catholics might be allowed still to use the words—
which they did not consider A discredit to them—" on
the true faith of a Christian." (Loud Opposition cheers.)
With regard to that part of the oath about mental reser-
vation, tie had only to say, that if the house wished to
put on record that it entertained suspicions with regard
to the good faith and honour of their fellow-Christians,
the oath, when it was read at the table, would be some-
thing of which the house, and not the Catholics, ought
to be ashamed. (Cheers.) It was true that the mean-
ing and intent of the oath should be once for all set at
rest ; so that when gentlemen had taken that oath ac-
cording to what they conceived to be its true significa-
tion, it should no longer be open to coarse-minded wen
to impute to them an indifference to the obligations
which they had imposed upon themselves. He was pre-
pared to prove that there was nothing in the Catholic
oath which could restrain any hon. member from any
legislative act which he conceived would be for the in-
terests of the people or the honotir of the crown. It
might be true that the oath had been a matter of agree-
ment ; but the Catholic party to that agreement bad
always understood it in a differentsense from that which
had been placed upon it by the other side. The oath
was
exactly
a t the Ala
ys
ns.o
and
dat
asit
taken
wobuyldthbeethaebosluordgictaol
students
suppose that Catholic priests were sworn not to
oiet ha;
weaken the Protestant re ligiun by the legitimate
exercise of their functions, the inference must
be that there was nothing in the oath of members to re-
strict them, in the discharge of their legislative capacity,
from taking any course which they believed to be for the
good of the community. (Bear.) se long ago at 1834
cr 1835 Mr. O'Connell moved for a committee to inquire
into the meaning of the oath, so that it would be seen
that the Catholic party had never acquiesced in the in-
terpretation now sougbt to be placed upon it. (Hear.)
He (Mr. Moore) had heard with surprise the speech of
the noble lord at the head of the Government. Tao
noble lord had not the excuse which might be pleaded
by a weak ministry. He was at the head of a govern-
ment as strong as that of 1841, and yet he descended
to the shifts of that of 1851. (Hear, hear.) He pro-
fessed to deal with a question in the spirit of a great
statesman, but he really undertook it in the spirit
of the smallest trickster. (Loud cheers.) He under •
took a measure of religious liberty, and he endea-
voured to raise one class of his fellow-subjects against
another, on the ground that it might facilitate matters
in another place. He (Mr. Moore) believed that the
Low Church bishop scheme would fail like the Darhaut
Letter scheme had failed. While the noble lord was
making arrangements with Lord Shaftesbury he might
find himself arousing public opinion ; and he might yet
live to be taught that it was not safe to rouse the ener-
gies of a compact body, which had never yet wanted the
means of making itself formidable. (Laughter and
cheers.
Mr- ROEBUCK said that when a well-graced actor
simulated a part, and so imitated truth as to wring from
every one the acknowledgment how like the truth it was,
they admired the actor and they felt wonder at the simu-
lation, but they were not taken in by the attempt. He
might bring to the recollection of his learned friend (Sir
F. Thesiger) a circumstance which had occurred within
his own knowledge. The hon. and learned gentleman
would recollect that when an eminent Queen's Conned
was desirous to be admitted a bencher of one of the Inns
o EC.rurt, he was required to take an oath that the
Pope had no ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction in
these realms. That eminent Queen's Counsel said be
could not swear that, and the benchersdispeneed witlatbs
oath.. (Hear.. The ecclesiastiast,ical jurisdiction of the
rop.-in-thl/4se realms was a matttr of faot. trio the

Mr. STAPLETON, though be agreed in the move-
ment, said h, did not consider the mode adopted as the
right course to bo pursued to give Roman Catholics the
relief required. He should be obliged to vote against
the amendment.
Mr. WALPOLE wished to say a few words in exela-
nation of his reasons for voting against the amendment.
The bon. and learned member (tlr. Deasy) quoted a
speech of the member for the University of Oxford that
oaths should be short and simple. He was of that opi-
nion, and it was for that reason that he thought it a
great improvement that they should have one oath sub•
stituted for three. But they ought not to make this alte-
ration unless they retained in the one oath all the prin-
ciples that were previously contained in the three. Now
the committee would bear with him for one moment and
he wool I explain what he meant by that. The first oath
was simply the oath of allegiance to the Queen—"l will
bear true allegiance to her Majesty." That oath re-
mained fi r some time the only oath which was taken by
members of parliament. In the course of time it was found
that there were certain men who had a divided allegiance
and the oath of supremacy was then introduced
in order that there might be no mistake on this
point, that no foreign prince or potentate, whether
lie were lay or whether he were ece.esiastical, should
have any authority in this realm. The principle there-
fore of the two oaths was undivided allegiance. Then
they came to the third oath, which was introduced in
the reign of William 111., because attacks bad been
made on our liberties, which ended in the abdication of
James 11. They then substituted a new form of oath,
when they prescribed a new mode of descent of the
Crown, deelering that the allegiance which was undivided
by the two oaths should be to the Crown in the heirs of
a particular person. The three principles therefore were
allegiance, undivided allegiance, and allegiance according
to act of Parliament. All these three principles were con•
tained in the oath as proposed by the noble viscount, and
for that reason he sustained the clause as far as it went.
Being snore siinpleand more short, it would also be more
solemn. Then it was proposed to alter the oath by the
substitution of two adjectives for two other a jectives
—for the words " ecclesiastical and spiritual" to substi-
tute " temporal or civil," and the noble lord only opposed
thataniendinent because this was not the motueut inwhich
the fern' of oath prescribed for the Roman Catholics—
intended he must say as a security at the time—the noble
lord only opposed it because this was not the mode and
this was not the time in which that alteration should be
made. The noble lord said they ought to deprecate any
religious dissensi )n ; but, unless the noble lord's words
were more guarded, he would promote a feeling in this
country which was not favourable to the prevention of
that religious dissension. For the sake of that religious
peace which the noble lord recommended, he deprecated
any alteration which might provoke religious dissension.
He thought that this amendment would necessarily pro-
voke religions dissension, and for that reason he should
vote against it.
Lord PAL \IERSTON observed that the right hon.
gentleman assumed that he rested his objection to the
proposal simply on the ground boat this was not the time
for making any alteration in the Roman Catholic oath,
That was the sole ground on which he proposed to
discuss and deal with the present motion ; but he
distinctly said that he thought that ground broad
enough for the present occasion, and that therefore
he abstained from entering into discussion as to the
merits of the Roman Catholic oath, with regard to
which there were some parts which ke tbonght unneces-
sary, while there were others with regard to which he
might entertain a different opinion.
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was no doubt that an oath
ought to be ehurt, but there was another qualification in
an oath which the might lion. gentleman left out, and that
was truth. Now, he wanted to know if the oath as prtor-
i posed was true. It said that " the Pope or any. b
foreign potentate had no power or authority, eccl,eslaomttaicra.l
or spiritual, in this realm." Now, was that true. seder.)Lle wanted to know if the Pope Idaha y P'""11. d on in
astical and spiritual in England ? was e . his
that house, and he was called upon twenty:tims in
it was a fact.
life actually to swear to a lie. (A. laugh.)
There was not a man in that house who did not know
in
tbat the Pope has spiritual dominionthis country.
Did he not parcel out this kingdom into bishoprics,
and did they not pass a law concerning his doing that
which was no law, and which they dare not enforce
against the authority of the Pope of Rome. Why they
knew that at this very hour there were people in this
town who exercised ecclesiastical dominion therein.
More than that, the Pope of R .me had declared in favour
of the doctrine of immaculate coeception, and did he not
impose it on Cathol cc in this city Was not that spiri-
tual dominion ? If it were not, he wanted to know what
was. Then he, knowing that the Pope exercised that
dominion, was asked to swear that he did not. If he did
swear that, was be not swearing to a lie, and to what
he knew to be a lie! Inasmuch as he disliked that for-
mal mode of lying, he should vote for the amendment.
Sir F. THESIGER said Mr. Roebuck had put a con-
struction upon this oath which had perfectly astonished
him. His hon. and learned friend said any one who took
that oak swore to a lie, his hon. and learned friend h to
self having taken that oath. Nothing could be more satis-
factery than the mode in which Mr. Deasy had moved
this amendment, and if he had any complaint to make
against Lim it was that, having addressed himself
to the various objections that recurred to him with re-
-gard- to the guenani .Catkelic oaths he never ence.att-
dresl:ei himself to his.own amendment. He was in 114 es