go.

tholic Members of the Legislature had no right to interfere in questions relating to the temporalities of the Church; but, although this right was conceded to them by the right hon. Secretary, he forgot to say at what point they should stop, or the limits to which their interference might How were they to know when they were to pause, or when they were to go on? Mr. Secretary Stanley: What he had stated was, that when any question relating to the temporalities of the Church was brought forward, the conduct of the Roman Catholic Gentlemen should be consistent with the oath they had taken to abjure all intention of subverting the Protestant Church as by law established.

Mr. Sheil had not doubted that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the right to interfere; but what he complained of was, that the right hon. Secretary had omitted to state how far that interference might be carried.

Mr. Secretary Stanley: The words of the oath clearly fixed the interpretation that ought to be given to it. The party taking it, swore that he abjured all intention of subverting the Protestant Church as by law established.

petitions that poured in from all quarters against it. Let not the right hon. Gentleman be haunted by the horrid fancies with respect to Popery, when he had before his eyes the avowed hostility which the Dissenters had declared against the Church established by law. The hostility of the Dissenters was much more alarming, as far as regarded the safety of the Church, than that to be apprehended from the Roman Catholics. It was only that morning that an hon. and learned Civilian presented a petition from a body of Dissenters, stating the junction of Church and State to be at variance with the true principles of Christianity. The Roman Catholics never, at any time, used such strong language in speaking of the Church.

Mr. Methuen said, that he had presented several petitions from bodies of Dissenters on the subject of the Established Church; but he denied, that any wish was expressed in them that the union between Church and State should be dissolved.

Mr. Sheil begged to say, that he did not speak of all Dissenters. A petition had, however, been presented that day from a body of Dissenters, the prayer of which was for a separation such as he had described.

*

Mr. Sheil: The view which the right hon. Secretary had taken of the terms of the oath was a very narrow one. He must complain of the interruptions which he Mr. Methuen said, that as no petition had already experienced; and said, that that he had presented contained such a the right hon. Secretary had acted, in the prayer, the hon. and learned Gentleman's present instance, with a species of cour-observations could not apply to the Distesy and urbanity, which not unfrequently senters from whom these petitions had distinguished him, and for which he (Mr. come; and in their name, and on their Sheil) supposed he was bound to say, he behalf, he begged to disavow such senfelt grateful and obliged. He denied, that timents. there was any means of ascertaining which was the right or which was the wrong construction of the oath. There was a manifest distinction between the Protestant Religion or the Protestant Government and the temporalities annexed to the Established Church, and on this distinction it was, that Roman Catholics founded their right to interfere with the latter. It was not, however, from Roman Catholics that the right hon. Gentleman had most to apprehend for the safety of the Protestant Church. Without fear of contradiction, he could assert, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had never expressed opinions so unfavourable to that Church, as those which were constantly expressed by Members of that House, and which were to be found in the numerous

Mr. Cobbett had always been as friendly as he possibly could to the Roman Catholics, and because he was so, he regretted to see this Motion brought forward. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington) was mistaken, if he believed that the people of England were insensible or indifferent upon this subject. Let there be an inquiry as to altering the oaths taken by Roman Catholic Members, and his opinion was, that the people of this country would be agitated from one end of the island to the other. The learned Doctor seemed to have changed his opinion on the subject of Roman Catholic oaths; for last year, in the debate on the Address, he called upon Roman Catholic Members to remember the oath which they had taken with respect to the

Established Church. Referring to a pre- | Catholics, to whom alone its provisions vious speech in the debate, the learned could apply, were absolved from it. If he Doctor said, that, " The hon. and learned could learn from the noble Lord (Althorp) Member, (for Dublin) used one expression that it was the intention of Ministers to which struck particularly on his ear-he take up this important question, he would spoke of destroying the Protestant Church decline to vote with the hon. and learned in Ireland. What did the hon. Member member for Dublin; but if he received mean by that expression. Did he intend no such intimation, he certainly would to adhere to it?" Then, an explanation vote for a Committee. He strongly obbeing offered by the hon. Member, to the jected to the present multiplication of uneffect that, "when he spoke of interference necessary oaths, and was quite ready to with the Church, he meant only with its tem- do away with all political oaths whatsoever, poralities;" the learned Doctor said, that, except the Oath of Allegiance. Mr. O'Dwyer thought, that the conduct "The explanation of the hon. Member was not more satisfactory than his original of the Roman Catholic Members of that declaration. However anxious hon. Mem- House had justly entitled them to call for bers might be to correct irregularities, and the abolition of this oath. He thought it purify the Church, and no Member was expedient that the question should be set He was willing to concur in a more anxious than he (Dr. Lushington) at rest. to effect those objects, yet he had thought declaratory resolution which should relieve that every Member in that House was Roman Catholic Members from the impubound, by a solemn obligation, to uphold tation (however courteously expressed) of the Established Church. He had hoped forgetting the obligations imposed upon that the oath taken by the Catholic Mem-them by their oaths. He should, of course, bers on entering that House, made a deep vote for granting the Committee. But now impression on their minds."* the learned Doctor would dispense with oaths altogether. He deprecated any Committee, or the adoption of any measure on the subject, because he knew that the consequence would be, to agitate the people. In allusion to the explanation of the hon. Member opposite, on the subject of the Dissenters, he thought that the hon. Member must know, that numerous petitions had come from the Dissenters for admission into the Universities. To his surprise, Ministers appeared ready to concede the point. He did not say, that he objected to it—but all men knew, that James 2nd lost his Crown for attempting to put a Roman Catholic into Oxford; and now it was rather curious to find Ministers prepared to acquiesce in a measure of a like nature with one which caused James 2nd to be expelled from this country.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson referred to the measure of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, for doing away with the oaths taken before the Lord Steward, and expressed his objection to all unnecessary oaths, as tending to bring those obligations into contempt. He particularly objected to the Oath of Supremacy, and the Oath of Abjuration, which latter, Protestants were absurdly called upon to take, while Roman

* Hansard, (third series) xv. p. 426.

Mr. Lambert said, that it was preposterous for them to call on a man to swear that which their reason told them was absurd. Every oath should be clear and definite in its interpretation; but that was not the case in this instance. For his part he bore no ill-will to the Protestant Church, nor did he wish to see it subverted. On the contrary, so long as a State religion was necessary in the country he devoutly wished it to be Protestant. All he desired was, that the objectionable part of this oath should be erased from it, and he thought that if it were to run thus

"I do promise and swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, and that I will uphold and support the constitution of the country as by law established"-it would not only be satisfactory, but answer all the purposes which could render an oath useful or desirable.

Mr. Andrew Johnston was glad that the question of the oath was likely to be set at rest.

At present such was the dubious state in which Roman Catholics were placed, that they were taunted with a construction of the oath inconsistent with their principles, when they voted on certain questions. For instance, on the subject of Irish Church temporalities, or any other subject connected with the Established Church, they were placed in a disagreeable and painful situation. He hoped, if the question could not be settled

now on account of an informality in the | and in his opinion, the agitation of the manner in which it was brought forward, question would be injurious both in Engthat the hon. and learned Member would land and in Ireland. again bring it forward, before any of the questions to be mooted regarding the Church of England were brought before the House. Such were his feelings on this point, that if any motion such as that for the abolition of tithes, of which the hon. and learned Member had given notice, were brought forward before the question was settled, he would consider it his duty to move the previous question.

Mr. O'Reilly expressed his regret that this question was mooted by any Catholic Member of this House, and he must protest against the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. For his own part he had felt no hardship in taking the oath, and regretted to hear that there was a possibility of the cry of "No Popery" being again raised. He trusted, however, to the liberal feeling of Englishmen, to counteract any insidious attempt of the kind.

Mr. O'Connell, in reply, said, he could not think that the mooting of this question could possibly excite any warmth of feeling, or probably any feeling at all, out of that House. He was not the person to whom the hon. and learned Member replied on the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Oldham. In reference to the statement of the right hon. member for Tamworth, to the effect that he made a speech at the Bar of the House in 1829, claiming to sit, and offering to take the oaths which he now wished to get rid of, he replied, that he not only offered to take the oath, but had taken it; but that since taking it, a controversy had arisen as to its meaning, which gave him uneasiness, from which he wished to be relieved by a distinct definition of the intent and meaning of the oath in one way or the other. The hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, had indulged in Mr. Philip Howard thought the hon. some self-gratulation at the alleged fulfiland learned member for Dublin had exer- ment of some prophecy of his as to the cised a very sound discretion in bringing admission of Catholics into the House, the question before the House. When he and had candidly lamented that he saw compared the hon. and learned Member's him (Mr. O'Connell) there. He would definition of the obligations of the oath, not return the compliment; for as long as with that of other Members professing the any question involving the principles of same religious faith, and when he saw religious liberty, or any liberal and engood and honourable men of different lightened policy remained to be discussed, religious principles, such as the hon. he desired no other adversary than the Baronet, the member for the University of hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet had Oxford, differing in their opinions as to thought it necessary to revive the whole the manner in which their consciences question of the Coronation Oath, and the were bound by the oath, he found in those result of his argument upon it went to facts sufficient reason for believing that this, that the King had committed perjury. the sooner they were relieved from the Now he was willing to be put in the same oath the better. If the question had been category of perjurers with his present put upon the ground of political expedi- Majesty and his deceased brother, and, if ency, he should have agreed with the they had been guilty of perjury, certainly right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam- he had also. Neither had been guilty, or worth, that it had better not have been both. The speech of the right hon. brought forward; but when it was declared Secretary, had treated the House to a to affect the sanctity of the obligations speech the first part of which was eminimposed by an oath, he thought it a ground ently Conservative, and the last as highly which demanded their attention. Be- theological. He had given them, howlonging to one of those families which for ever, a pretty good specimen of the necescenturies had been debarred by a very sity of some change in these matters by few words in an oath from the honour of stating that he had witnessed the coma seat in that House, he thought that the mission of perjury by eleven Roman oaths taken in the House ought not to be Catholics; but according to his own left subject to any doubt as to their strict account he, as a Magistrate, must have meaning and force. participated in the perjury by administer

Mr. Leech, knew that a very strong feel-ing the oath. ing existed on this subject in England,

Mr. Secretary Stanley begged to ex

plain, that he had done no such thing as what the hon. and learned Gentleman was attributing to him. In the case to which he had alluded, when the oath was to be administered, the book was put into the hands of all the party at once, when one of them pronounced the words, "I, John Smith, of No. 11, Church-street, &c." According to the oath so taken, there would have been twelve John Smiths, of No. 11, Church-street. Of course he, in administering the oath, did not pursue the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he did, but immediately stopped the proceeding, and caused the oath to be properly administered.

which must be set at rest, and was not, as had been urged, a question of contract or compact, for none had been entered into ; but, on the contrary, the right in this respect had ever been insisted upon. Though there had been three constructions put upon the oaths now prescribed to be taken, there was only one of them in which he could concur. He should persevere in bringing the subject before the House, with a view to ascertain whether the present oaths, religious oaths, taken in the House ought to be continued; and next, if they were, whether such a declaration could not be framed for the Protestant as well as Catholic, as would remove the existing feeling that hon. Members were required to swear to an absurdity. Under these circumstances he would beg leave to withdraw his Motion, and give notice that in Committee on the Bill of the hon. member for Lancashire, he should move a clause for removing all test oaths in that House as well as in other places. If he failed in that he should move a distinct resolution upon the subject.

The Motion was withdrawn.

Mr. O'Connell said, it appeared, then, that there was no oath taken, and therefore no perjury in the case at all. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had admitted that a part of an Act of Parliament had been levelled at him (Mr. O'Connell) and he wished the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had not gone further, and that he had not also had a paragraph of a King's Speech levelled at him. He contended, however, that under this clause of the Act, all the Roman Catholics were made to swear was, that they would not subvert the Established Church. They OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.] Sir did not swear to continue it. They did Andrew Agnew then rose to move, pursunot swear to maintain tithes and oblations. ant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill Surely religion was not a thing of pounds, to promote the better observance of the shillings, and pence, and it was the estab- Lord's day. As the subject was not new lished religion which they were not to to the House, he should not feel it necessubvert. There were two churches in sary to enter into any detail of the meaIreland, one established by law, the other sure he sought to introduce. He regretted by the people. Would the Protestant be that after so many petitions had been less an Established Church if deprived of presented last year, when the feeling of its temporalities? Having the provisions the country had been so unequivocally exof his oath before him, he would not have pressed, it should have devolved upon so voted on the question whether there should humble an individual as himself to bring be ten or twenty bishops-he would not forward so important a subject. It would have voted to abolish the order of bishops, be almost presumption in him to dictate or to alter the thirty-nine articles; but all that was necessary to be introduced in the Church Temporalities involved a such a legislative provision, and he should different question. With regard, however, submit a Bill containing such regulations to temporal property given to them by an as to him appeared desirable to the House, Act of Parliament, he felt himself as much and then call at a subsequent stage upon at liberty to deal as any other Member of the united wisdom of the House to devise the Legislature. The noble Lord opposite the best means of successfully carrying had assumed that the appointment of a into effect an object so much desired by Committee upon this subject, might be so numerous a body of petitioners as had open to objection in point of form, and addressed the House upon the subject. therefore he (Mr. O'Connell) could not He had thought it his duty so to arrange think that with propriety he could divide the clauses of the Bill, that hon. Members the House, though he begged it to be could by their votes in Committee upon it understood, that he by no means aban-exclude such as they might deem fit, doned the question. It was a subject without material deterioration to the