body of men in England who could offer so | in the Bill of last year. Nothing could be much passive resistance to an obnoxious more simple or more practicable; and he, measure as the agriculturists of England. for one, would give a cordial vote for the They might depend upon it, therefore, Resolution, leaving to the Government the that the returns would not be very trust-duty of proposing some plan for carrying it worthy if any attempt were made to squeeze into effect. them out of the farmers in a disagreeable manner. He regretted that the hon. Member was not content with having had an opportunity of propounding his views, but was resolved to divide the House. He (Mr. Henley) must vote against the Resolution. MR. PACKE said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Devonport that they were at present throwing away from £3,000 to £5,000 a year in obtaining statistics from Scotland and Ireland; but with regard to the Motion before the House; he held that mere acreage returns would be a perfect delusion, and of no earthly use whatever. Every practical farmer knew that last year there were two crops, of which no acreage return would have afforded the remotest idea of what those crops were likely to be -he alluded to the turnip and bean crops. The summer being a dry one, the turnip crop throughout the midland counties was a complete failure; whilst, with regard to the bean crop, he knew the case of a prac. tical farmer who, out of 70 acres, producing 5 quarters an acre, was able to carry to market in good saleable condition no more than 3 quarters and 4 bushels. This, he thought, was sufficient to show that it was utterly impossible to give any idea from acreage returns of what the produce was likely to be. MR. E. BALL said, that all the farmers wanted was to be let alone. They thought they knew their own business pretty well; and the House might rely upon it that if they resorted to this system of ascertaining the quantity of produce or the quantity of acreage under cultivation, they would only be misleading. They would get fictitious and nominal returns-returns that were altogether contrary to the facts of the case -and that would do more harm than good. MR. WILSON said, that last year, when the hon. Member for Dartmouth brought in a Bill on this subject, almost every one admitted the importance and practicability of obtaining correct agricultural returns; but the hon. Member was told that it was not for him, a private Member, to under take so important a task, but that it was a MR. BASS said, that a system of agricul duty which belonged especially to the Go-tural statistics was very much wanted; and vernment. What had the hon. Member he did not believe that any man who was done now? He simply asked the House acquainted with commerce in grain would to affirm a proposition which, if the Go- undertake to say that they were not of the vernment were disposed to act upon it, greatest importance. would enable them upon their own responsibility to introduce a measure for the collection of agricultural statistics and to include in the estimates a Vote for defraying the expenses. Parliament now voted every year a sum of about £3,000 for the purpose of taking agricultural statistics in Ireland, and another sum-he was not prepared to state its amount for the accomplishment of the same object in Scotland. But they had been told over and over again that the Scotch and Irish returns would never be of any use until similar statistics were collected in England. He concurred in that opinion, and what he desired was that the House should either extend the system over the whole country, or abandon its profitless expenditure in Scotland and Ireland. The Resolution now submitted to the House was confined to the amount of acreage under cultivation, and did not include the quantity of cattle and other matters which were objected to Question put. The House divided :-Ayes 152; Noes 163: Majority 11. TRIAL BY JURY (SCOTLAND). LEAVE. MR. DUNLOP moved for leave to bring in a Bill to allow the verdict of juries in civil cases in Scotland to be received in cases where the juries were not unanimous. He said the extension of the jury system to civil cases in Scotland, where the juries were required to be unanimous, was a method to which the people of Scotland were not accustomed, and in many instances it had produced injurious effects. Some time ago a measure was carried allowing juries to return a verdict by a majority after they had been for six hours in deliberation, and the working of that measure had given great satisfaction. But six hours was a longer period than most men could endure to be confined, and he proposed by his present Bill to shorten the period. The measure had the approbation of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff), and he hoped the Lord Advocate would not oppose it. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to state that he understood a measure of a similar kind either was or was about to be introduced into the other House, proposing a somewhat similar change in the law of England on this question; and he would, therefore, suggest to his hon. and learned Friend that he should not press his measure forward to have a discussion upon it till they had an opportunity of looking at the measure proposed for England. Motion agreed to. Bill to amend an Act of the seventeenth and eighteenth year of Her Majesty, for allowing Verdicts on Trial by Jury in Civil Causes in Scotland to be received, although the jury may not be unanimous; ordered to be brought in by Mr. DUNLOP and Mr. MONCREIFF. ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH. 46 inclination he should have proposed to abolish all oaths taken by Members, and to substitute one short comprehensive and forcible declaration of Allegiance to the Crown and constitution; but at present he should confine himself to abolishing those parts of the oath which placed Roman Catholic Members in a position of degrading inferiority. The oath settled by the Emancipation Act, besides the declaration of Allegiance and the abjuration of the authority of any foreign Prince, contained these four passages which he and other Members wished to expunge. The first was "I do further declare that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the doctrine that Princes excommunicate or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any person whatsoever." The next passage was― "I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within the realm as established by the laws." The next passage was "And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear never to exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom;" and the oath concluded in these words "I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain ordinary sense of the words, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever." MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he rose to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Act 10th of Geo. IV., cap. 7., in relation to the oath thereby required to be taken and subscribed, instead of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration. He understood this stage of the proceeding was a matter of form. [Mr. WA ALPOLE, No."] Well, then, if his proposition was to be opposed he would proceed to lay the grounds of it before the House. The House would recollect that in the last Session of Parliament a Bill was introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London, which in the end resulted in two alterations in the state of the law, the first of which was materially to alter the oaths taken by the general Members of that House, and the other was to admit the Jew within the pale of the constitution, so that they had already seen three Members of the Jewish persuasion take their seats in that House-gentlemen whom he hoped would not only prove ornaments of the House, but would add weight to its deliberations. Now the proposition "There is a question, however, connected with that he had to make was that the Roman this branch of the subject," said Sir Robert Peel, Catholic Members should be placed with "which will deserve great consideration. Shall respect to the oaths they had to take in the same position as the other Members of the House were placed by the Act of last year. If he had followed the bent of his own With regard to the abolition of three of these passages, he expected there would be no difference of opinion; to the abolition of the fourth there might be some opposition. Sir Robert Peel was the author of this oath, and for the motives which governed him it was necessary to refer either to his speeches at the time or to the memoranda recently published by his literary executors. Among these last might be found the following remarkable memorandum on this subject, dated August 11, 1828, addressed to the Duke of Wellington before the Roman Catholic relief Bill was submitted to the rest of the Cabinet: there be any limitation to the number of Roman Catholics entitled to sit in Parliament at the same time, or shall there be, as has been proposed lately, any restriction on the rights of individual Roman Catholic Members of Parliament with respect to voting on particular questions relating to the Established Church? I think of the two propositions above mentioned that the limitation of numbers is much less open to objection than the other, by which the discretion of Members of Parliament is to be taken away on certain and not very definite questions." That memorandum was written by Sir Robert Peel before the Bill was in the hands of the Cabinet, and on it was endorsed the following:-"The oath I have suggested was compiled from the existing oaths taken by Roman Catholics under the Acts of 1781-82, 1791, and 1793." This memorandum showed at once the source whence Sir Robert Peel derived that oath which he inserted in the Catholic Emancipation Act, and furnished a clue to its scope and character. If they referred to the state of things in Ireland in 1793, when the last of those oaths was imposed, it would be found that Ireland had then a separate Legislature, which was entirely composed of members of the Established Church. All power and place was in their hands; while, out of a population of four millions, three millions were Roman Catholics, and the other million was composed of the various Protestant bodies. When the three millions demanded to be admitted within the pale of the constitution, the minority resorted to every sort of device and contrivance to defeat the claims of justice. The minority felt that if the majority were admitted to the power of making laws the power of the minority would be gone, and they alleged that the Established Church would be uprooted-the constitution would be gradually subverted-and that unop pressed race would take revenge for old grievances. Hence every small measure of relief in the Irish Parliament was accompanied with the imposition of oaths and restrictions, which were perhaps excusable when demanded by a minority as a protection against a large majority, but which became quite inapplicable and unnecessary when the position of parties was reversed. Now he asked the House to consider the four passages of the oath to which he had referred. The first was : “And I do further declare, that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever." If his proposition were confined to that alone, he was sure that there was not one Member of the House who would not consent to expunge that passage from the oath taken by Roman Catholics, as it had been expunged by the Act of last Session from the oath formerly taken by Members of the Established Church, because he could conceive nothing more insulting than that a gentleman on appearing at that table should be singled out on account of his religion and compelled to abjure an opinion so wicked and revolting as was insinuated in that passage. He would not tread upon ground that might give rise to augry recollections, nor refer to the time when sect was ranged against sect-when every one thought it was right to propagate their, principles by fire and sword, when persecution was the rule, and when even Calvin thought he did right in committing Servetus to the flames. He did not wish to enter into the question, whether at any time any members of the church held to an opinion so abominable as that which they were now required to abjure, but on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, and of every Roman Catholic gentleman, he would declare it to be an insult even to suggest that at this time of day such opinions were entertained by their church, or by any individual member of it. next passage to which he desired to direct attention was this: The "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." On this he must offer a little explanation, because the passage was ambiguous in itself, and no one could understand it thoroughly without referring to antecedent transactions. If it were literally interpreted any Roman Catholic who voted for the Incumbered Estates Act, which worked an utter revolution in the property of the country, would have been guilty of an infraction of that oath. But that was not the true interpretation. Sir Robert Peel showed that the words "settlement of property" had a special meaning, and had reference to the Act of Settlement passed in the reign of Charles II., and the Roman Catholics were required to acquiesce in that settlement. No one could doubt that in 1829 it was unnecessary to introduce an oath to protect the settlement of property established so long ago as 1662. It was at one time supposed that if a majority of Roman Catholics got admission into the Irish Parliament they would use their power to restore the forfeited estates and reverse the Act of Settlement. That apprehension might have had some foundation a century ago, but any such appre hension in 1829, or at the present day, was simply and absolutely absurd. Property in Ireland had, since the Act of Settlement, so largely changed hands that Roman Catholics had, especially since the passing of the Incumbered Estates Act, become large proprietors of the soil, and, among the rest, of the forfeited estates. In the debate in the Irish Parliament upon Mr. Grattan's Bill for the admission of Roman Catholics in 1795, one Member asked whether, "if the Roman Catholics gained power, it would be their interest to permit a settlement of property to be unrepealed which they must regard as a tyrannical forfeiture? No, the temptation would be too great, and the power would be too strong to be resisted. The Irish Parliament inserted a provision that might have been wise and proper when they were, as they believed, protecting a small minority against a large majority, but which could not be necessary in 1829 or in 1859, Upon the general subject of the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members, Sir Robert Peel, upon introducing the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, on March 5, 1829, said: longs to other members of the Legislature." [2 Hansard, xx. 759.] Sir Robert Peel then proceeded to enumerate the other objections to the proposal, and after stating in full the proposed oath, added :— "The Roman Catholic who will take this oath surely gives us every security which an oath can affect his allegiance to the King or his capacity for give that the difference in religious faith will not civil service. It will be, perhaps, observed that this form of oath omits some abjurations and disclaimers which are inserted in the oaths now required from Roman Catholics. Sir, it does so, and purposely and advisedly. Why insult the Roman Catholic, on whom we are about to confer equality of civil privileges, by compelling him to reject in terms the impious position that it is lawful to murder heretics, or to record his detestation of the unchristian principle that faith is not to be kept with heretics?" [2 Hansard, xx. 761.] In another part of the debate, Sir Robert Peel, on the point at issue said :— "By the Roman Catholic oath I mean to make Roman Catholics abjure opinions dangerous to the State. I do not mean to fetter them in the exercise of their legislative functions." On the 6th of March, in the adjourned debate, he said: "The basis of the measure was equality of civil privilege." He (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) was contending for nothing more than equality of privileges, and it was clear that there was no intention on Sir Robert Peel's part to fetter a Roman Catholic in the exercise of any of his privileges or votes in Parliament. The third branch of the oath which he would expunge was as follows: "And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom." "Another proposal has been made by a right hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Wilmot Horton)-made from the best motives, and supported with an ingenuity, ability, and research worthy of the motives and character of its author. My right hon. Friend has proposed, with a view to calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law from voting on matters relating directly or indirectly to the interests of the Established Church. There appear to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal. In the first place, it is dangerous to establish the precedent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exercised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand what are the questions which affect the interests of the Church. A question which has no immediate apparant connection with the Church might have a practical bearing on its On this portion of the oath he might exwelfare ten times more important than another pect some difference of opinion, and some question which might appear directly to concern opposition to its abolition. One great it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic objection to this abjuration was the diffrom giving his individual vote. you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the ficulty of determining its construction with power of speaking, of biassing the judgment of accuracy. Five or six different opinions had others on the question on which he is not been held upon the right interpretation of himself to vote; and if by a jealous and this oath. There were some who held with distrusting, but ineffectual precaution you tempt the hon. Member for North Warwickshire him to increase, to your prejudice, the remaining power of which you cannot or do not (Mr. Spooner), that the Roman Catholic propose to deprive him. I believe there is more Member was not at liberty to vote upon of real security in confidence than in avowed mis- any question tending to interfere with the trust and suspicion, unaccompanied by effectual Church or its establishment, and the hon. guards. For these reasons I am unwilling to Member was rather disposed to reprove deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either House of Parliament of any privilege of free dis-him for voting upon the question of Miniseussion and free exercise of judgment, which be- ters' Money after having taken that oath. Others held that the oath was not intended to interfere with the legislative action of the Roman Catholic Member, but that it left him free and unincumbered. It would not be difficult to give half a dozen different constructions of that oath, and he submitted that whatever oath Parliament might require ought to be simple, unequivocal, and without ambiguity, so that every man might know the meaning of that which he was about to swear. Hon. Members, however, might contend that this clause of the oath gave a security which they were right in contending for, and that it ought to be imposed upon the Roman Catholics. But a security against what? Not against the votes of Roman Catholics in that House, because he had already referred to the authority of Sir Robert Peel, who, in proposing the oath, disclaimed any intention of interfering with their right to vote. The truth was, that the enemies of the Etablishment were not to be found among the Roman Catholics, but among other bodies which were free to enter that House. The House would find that Motions with reference to the Established Church had not usually originated with the Roman Catholics. The real enemies of the Church were to be found within its own bosom and among the Dissenters. But, independently of any consideration of that sort, Sir Robert Peel stated that the object of the oath was to induce Roman Catholics to abjure opinions dangerous to the State, and to prevent disloyal persons from obtaining civil offices. The passage of the oath to which he (Mr. FitzGerald) had referred could give no security for either the one or the other of these ends. It appeared from the debates in the Irish Parliament that the object of those who proposed the oath of 1793 was to compel Roman Catholics to abjure all intention of subverting the Church Establishment for the purpose of replacing it by a Catholic Establishment, and one hon. Member of the Irish Parliament thus described his fears : "I ask the House whether they are prepared to introduce a popish in the room of a Protestant Church establishment. For myself, I am free to confess that if the Parliament in political power becomes Catholic, the Church establishment ought to be of the same persuasion." But did any one now give way to so wild, visionary, and chimerical an apprehension as to suppose that the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom meditated to subvert the Protestant Church as a State institution, and set up a State Catholic Establishment in its stead. The last passage in the oath which he wished to see expunged was that in which the person subscribing to it declared that he made it without any equivocation or mental reservation whatever. This portion of the oath he agreed with a great authority in thinking was of no value whatever, because if an individual applied himself to discover equivocation in an oath, I fear that no oath which could be devised would bind him. The House last year very wisely struck out of the oath to be taken by Members not Roman Catholic the offensive words, and he asked that the same words should be struck out of the Roman Catholic oath. If he should be successful in his attempt to introduce a Bill, he proposed by that Bill to reduce the oath of 1829 to exactly the same form of oath as that proposed in 1854 by the Earl of Aberdeen's Government. It might be said that the settlement of 1829 ought not to be disturbed; but he denied that a final settlement was made in that year, and for these reasons-- -that the Roman Catholics were not before the House, and Sir Robert Peel-as was now well known-did not communicate with the leaders of the Roman Catholic party. But it might be urged that the securities given by the oath of 1829 ought not to be taken away. Well, on that point he might refer the House to Lord Castlereagh's opinion of the value of such securities. When a similar oath was proposed in 1813, Lord Castlereagh said the security which that oath would give to the Church Establishment was the greatest farce he had ever heard of. There was no doubt that in 1829 the character of the Roman Catholics was comparatively unknown in this country, and undoubtedly there existed then in this country a large party, headed by Lord Eldon, whose fears it was desirable to allay. The Roman Catholics were grossly traduced and misrepresented. At that time it was said that that House would be inundated with Roman Catholics if Roman Catholic Emancipation were granted,that Ireland would send 100 of these rethe crown and constitution, and that their presentatives that they were disloyal to efforts would be in opposition to civil and religious liberty. But they had had thirty years' experience of the Emancipation Act, and what had happened? the present time in that House, consisting of 654 Members, there were only 31 Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics formed more than one-fifth of the population of these At |
