of a great trial.

"The Roman Catholic, being relieved from certain civil disabilities, was required to give an assurance that he would acquiesce in the settlement of property, and would not attempt to disturb it. Surely that must be called a compact, if anything could constitute a compact ?"

Sir Robert Peel proceeded to say—

"When, therefore, the Roman Catholic oath was inserted in the Act of 1829, the words relat

ing to the settlement of property were continued, and Roman Catholics repeated there the assurance that they would acquiesce in that settlement of property which had taken place at the restoration of Charles II. Such was the immediate cause of the introduction of the words relating to the settlement of property."

as far as it concerns practical and conscientious | and learned Gentleman had not uttered submission, and it is perfectly childish to say, we the sentiments he had done on the eve will not accept their present acquiescence and their oath that they will continue to acquiesce.” Sir Robert Peel, in rendering an explanation of his EmanciIt did not interfere with their religious pation Act, had also said— opinions at all-it only bound them not to attempt to subvert the Church establishment, and it was that oath that enabled that eminent orator and great man to in duce the House to agree with his views. If that oath did secure in a great degree the acquiescence of the Roman Catholics to the Church Establishment, he (Mr. Whiteside) would ask whether the hon. Member who last spoke was correct in calling it a foolish, illusory, and miserable oath? If he were asked to explain the matters referred to in the oath he referred to history. Could any one doubt that in the reign of Charles I., and later, it was intended by the Pope, if possible, to upset the existing arrangements? He quite agreed that the Protestant religion could not be shaken by any oath, because he believed it had its foundation on truth; but they must look also to the questions of Government and property, and it became necessary to consider the causes for certain passages in the oath. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, but the opinion of even so eminent a man was not conelusive upon a point of this nature. They must also consider what was done by the House of Commons upon the representations he made and the arguments he used. Why should any Gentleman object to swear that he would respect the settlement of property? The reason assigned by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan) that many Roman Catholic gentlemen had since then acquired property, was an additional reason for not objecting to it. Sir Robert Peel had explained that "the words relating to the settlement of property had a special meaning. They had special reference to the declaration of Charles II., in 1660, shortly after his restoration, by which he made a settlement of the forfeited es tates. That Act of Settlement constituted the title to a large mass of the Irish property." There were at the present tine, he did not say a formidable body, but there were persons who thought that settlement ought to be overthrown. [Cries of "Oh !"] The fact was so, although perhaps the numbers of those who held such opinion was not large; and he could have desired that the hon.

Would the House believe that Sir Robert Peel himself did not at that time hold the opinion that it was necessary to introduce those words into the oath? The Act in which that oath was embodied, was framed, he believed, by no less an authority than the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal then Solicitor General. When an attempt was subsequently made to remove that passage from the oath, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) opposed the Motion, and gave his reasons. The noble Lord said, he did not think it would be wise to disturb a settlement made after so much conflict and so much consideration, and which, as he understood, the Roman Catholics had supported as a full and complete admission of their claims to sit in Parliament. When those words were quoted by Sir Robert Peel, that distinguished statesman said he thought the noble Lord had acted wisely in not disturbing the oath of 1829, and for twenty-five years after that no dis tinguished Member ever sought to alter the oath. It was asked why Sir Robert Peel introduced this oath. Let them see what he himself said. Following the example of Grattan and Plunket, he argued the question upon the value of the securities which were offered, and having rejected the passage about transubstantiation, as being offensive, and also as unnecessarily calling upon people to give an opinion upon a dogma, and that affirming that it was not justifiable to murder or kill a heretic on the former of these grounds only, he said—

"The time has been"-and he believed this to be historically correct- "when the Roman Catho

lics in England have not refused to take the oath | have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, of Supremacy, and when invidious distinctions superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, shall have been removed, and with them a sensi- within this realm." tive jealousy on points of honour, that time may return. In the meantime the Bill will provide an oath to the following effect,"

Surely that was not objected to

"And I swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within the realm."

What could be more reasonable than that engagement, which was supported by the very argument which had been urged against it-namely, the large purchases made under the Incumbered Estates Act by Roman Catholic gentlemen? The last passage was,

"I disclaim, disavow, and abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment settled by law within this realm.”

and he set out the oath which substantially appeared in the Emancipation Act. Now, however, hon. Gentlemen said that it was all a mistake, and asked if it was ever known that any great object was gained by an oath. Had that argument been used at the time of which he had been speaking, the Roman Catholics would never have been admitted to Parliament, because those who argued most strongly in their favour always urged the value of the securities which they proposed to give to the LegislaIt was not the Protestant religion, ture. And to what did those securities against that they were at liberty to argue extend? First, the Oath of Allegiance if they could, but it was the Church Eswas a little expanded. There was no ob- tablishment; and had not the State a right jection to that, unless, indeed, one might be to impose such an engagement? The best raised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke argument in its favour was that innocently last. The first and second passages reand candidly supplied by the hon. Memlated to the disclosure of the conspiracies ber for Cork (Mr. Fagan) when he said, and the maintenance of the succession, that he had frequently felt and been reand were both, he believed, admitted strained by the force of that oath; and to be right. The next declared that he well remembered how careful that hon. Member was, being a conscientious and honourable gentleman, to show that the measure which he introduced for the abo

"It is not an article of my faith that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any other authority of the see of Rome may be destroyed by their subjects or by any person what-lition of Ministers' money did not touch soever."

It must be rather a satisfaction to a gen tleman to have an opportunity of saying that he rejected that doctrine. [4 laugh]. The hon. Gentleman who laughed seemed to think that that doctrine had never been maintained; but if he referred to the State Trials he would find that the man who affixed the bull of excommunication to the palace of Queen Elizabeth was tried and executed for that offence. The mistake which was made by certain hon. Gentlemen was, that they consulted their own hearts, and finding that they had no such feelings as these, thought that they there fore disposed of the history of the world. Now, he had never read in any well authenticated book that the eminent person who directed the Roman Catholic Church at Rome, if he was still at Rome, had disclaimed this prerogative of ex-communication, which certainly was exercised by him

in former times. These were historical

facts, and neither he nor any one else could alter history. The next part of the

oath was,

"I do declare that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to

upon his oath. That showed the value of
the oath. It was to bind conscientious
men like the hon. Member for Cork, be-
cause he admitted that it could not bind
an unconscientious man. He did not relish
the mode in which the right hon. and
learned Member for Ennis had dealt with
the oath, explaining it by what A B and
CD thought it meant. That was not the
way to interpret the oath. The question
was, what was meant by the Parliament
which framed and imposed it? When Sir
Robert Peel was asked by Sir Charles
Wetherall and several others why he did
not prevent the Roman Catholics voting
upon any Church question, he replied that
he might as well prohibit their speaking or
being in the House while such questions
were under discussion, which would be im-
possible; but he added, that he was laying
upon their conscience that obligation the
force of which had been felt by the hon.
Member for Cork, and by many others to
his knowledge; and he could assure
Roman Catholic Members that the expres-
sion of that feeling would be of much more
advantage to their religion than would the
Its existence
introduction of this Motion.
proved the force of Mr. Grattan's argu-

"The Roman Catholic who takes this oath surely gives us every security which an oath can give, that the difference in religious faith will not affect his allegiance to the King or his capacity

for civil service."

The oath omitted passages that were in vidious, and Sir Robert Peel, as a reason for that omission, asked, "Why insult the Roman Catholic?" [Opposition cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen cheered too soon. What Sir Robert Peel said was, why insult them by the passages which he had omitted? This argument occurred after he had set out the oath. He continued,

ment, when he asked, "How can you dis- their prostrate condition and gave to them 1 believe gentlemen who are willing to pledge all the privileges which they desired, was their consciences to such an oath as this?" not entitled to their reverence and love. and showed the soundness of Sir Robert Sothat the Legislature, which, according Peel's judgment, when in opposition to to the right hon. and learned Gentleman lawyers and critics who prophesied that the (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald), imposed an unjust Oath would be of no avail, and would be condition upon the admission of Roman got rid of, he said, "I believe it will be of Catholics to Parliament, was by the Archavail with all conscientious men. I do not bishops and Bishops of his Church, assemdeprive them of their rights as Members bled in conclave, declared to be entitled to of Parliament; but trust to their con- the reverence and love of the people of sciences." After he had framed the oath Ireland. The B shops proceeded to say Sir Robert Peel said, that they trusted that the feeling of their fellow-religionists upon this subject was in unison with their own, and that attachment to the laws and Government of their country and to their Sovereign would be manifested in their future conduct. "We united," they added in conclusion, "our efforts with those of the laity in endeavouring to attain this great end, and to attain it without a compromise of the freedom of our Church," There was no compromise, therefore, of the freedom of the Roman Catholic Church; there was nothing which the heads of that Church did not declare a Roman Catholic gentleman might not safely and conscientiously swear to; for, while he admitted that the Bishops did not object to the passage in the Emancipation Act which related to monastic establishments, he had proved that they applauded all the other clauses in the Bill, and among them the clause which contained the oath which it was now sought to repeal. He relied upon the facts he had adduced; he relied upon the statement of the Bishops, that the oath was one which they might fairly and conscientiously take; and he opposed the present Resolution not in any narrow spirit of bigotry, but on the distinct and intelligible ground that the Roman Catholic oath contained a record of the conditions upon which emancipation was granted, no matter whether it had or had not proved efficacious for its purpose, As it was acccepted by the great leaders of the Roman Catholic party, as it was applauded by the Roman Catholic Bishops, and as it had been recognized by Roman Catholic gentlemen from 1829 to the present hour, so he trusted it would not be disturbed now by those who wished to preserve religious peace and tranquillity in the country.

"We cannot suspect the Roman Catholics of these countries of entertaining these opinions" (expressed in the passages which he (Mr. Whiteside) omitted)" and if we do suspect them we have been wrong heretofore in giving them their existing privileges. I will neither detract from the force of these disclaimers which the oath will contain by the addition of useless incumbrances, nor mortify by galling and unjust suspicions fellow-subjects whom we are inviting in a spirit of peace and confidence to share the blessings of equal and undiscriminating laws." [2 Hansard, xx. 761.]

He then proceeded to say that this oath satisfied every scruple of the Roman Catholics, and that he did not think they would have any just ground of complaint against any of its paragraphs. But the hon. Gentleman said that this oath was never assented to by the Irish people and clergy. How, then, did it happen that so many Roman Catholic gentlemen had from time to time entered that House, taken the oath with safe consciences, and become as the hon. Member said, useful and excellent in their various situations and positions? This, however, was a most unfortunate argument, because he had before him a quotation from a most able document drawn up by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, in which they spoke of the Roman Catholic Relief Act as a great, beneficial, and healing measure, and asked the Catholics of Ireland whether a measure which had raised them up from

LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the view which I take of this question does not rest upon the ground-though, perhaps, it may be a strong ground-upon which it was placed by my right hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Ennis; | learned Friend upon that subject, and, but as a Member of the Legislature I seeing that the question must be deterwish the House to consider whether it is mined, not by the thirty-one Roman Cathonot fit from time to time to examine the lic Members of this House, but by the onths which are taken at our table, to see whole of the 650 Gentlemen who reprewhether there are any parts of them which sent the people. I am not the least affectare unnecessary or insulting to a portioned by the argument stated by an hon. and of our fellow-subjects; and, if so, to decide whether the objectionable passages may not be removed without destroying any security whatever. Although there certainly must remain in our oaths a good deal which I might not think quite necessary, yet everybody must admit that if there are portions of an oath binding not only Members of Parliament, but magistrates and other persons holding office, which are liable to objections, it is not the part of a wise Legislature to maintain those passages, to keep up an oath which is of useless length, and, above all, to continue an oath in a form which is offensive to any part of our fellow-subjects. The learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) seems to think that my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) has wantonly and foolishly introduced this subject; but we did act last year upon this very principle. We did not merely occupy ourselves, as we might have done, in seeing that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be omitted in deference to the Jews; that was all that was necessary in the case of the Jew. The Jew had no objection to renounce James II., or the person falsely calling himself James III., and any of his descendants who might be living and should come to claim the throne against Queen Victoria. It was not for the sake of the Jew that we left those passages out of the oath. They were passages which we Protestants took at the table of the House, and which we thought unnecessary; and there were many of us who held it to be something like profanation to continue to take an oath which was a mere mockery, and which applied to a state of things which no longer existed. Accordingly, we very much improved the oath, I believe with the cordial concurrence both of those who opposed the admission of Jews and those who were in favour of it. That task, then, having been accomplished successfully, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ennis now comes forward and says that a portion of our fellow-subjects are still obliged to take an oath, some of the passages of which are fairly open to objection. I am willing to listen to my right hon. and

learned Member who spoke early in the
debate (Mr. Adams) and insisted upon by
the learned Attorney General for Ireland,
that there is a compact on the part of the
Roman Catholics. Compact or no com-
pact, there is nothing to prevent the Le-
gislature from shortening and simplifying
an oath, or reducing it to a form in which
men can bind themselves, without collusion
or ambiguity, to all that the State need
require. There is nothing to prevent the
wisdom of Parliament from making such an
alteration. I admit what has been stated by
the learned Attorney General for Ireland
that when the Emancipation Act was
passed the Roman Catholic Archbishops
and Bishops did express their gratitude for
it, and did rejoice that they had been deli-
vered from a state which was undoubtedly
degrading to a portion of the subjects of
this realm. But Sir Robert Peel and the
Duke of Wellington stated, and stated over
and over again, that they might have
adopted either of two courses.
One was
to negotiate with the Roman Catholics,
to ask what oath they were willing to
take, what restrictions they would place
themselves under, by what securities they
would be bound, and then to frame a
measure upon the result of the negotia-
tions thus entered into. They thought
that an unwise mode of proceeding.
The other course was for Parliament to
consider the whole subject, both what
was due in justice to the Roman Catho-
lic people and what was necessary for
the security of our Protestant institu-
tions, and to pass a measure accordingly.
Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wel-
lington thought that was the wise prin-
ciple, and I believe they were quite
right. Such was the principle upon
which they framed their Bill, and pre-
sented it for the approbation of Parlia-
ment. That does away altogether with
the notion of a compact. The Roman
Catholics might be willing to accept the
measure, but, whether they had accepted
it or not, the Duke of Wellington would no
doubt have said, "I shall leave them to
decide after the Bill has passed whether or
not the terms are such as they can accept,
but they are terms which I think it neces-

sary to impose upon them." But now let | asked to consider whether we could assent us, as Protestants, consider whether it is to the proposal in connection with it of the wise to preserve those four articles of the Government of the day, and Lord Althorp, oath to which so much allusion has been I remember, left that meeting charged made. The learned Attorney General for with a message to Sir Robert Peel, which Ireland passed somewhat slightly over the was to the effect that some change might first passage of the oath, in which, he be made in the measure not with respect said, the Roman Catholics renounced as an to the oath, but with respect to the dis-article of their faith that it is lawful to franchisement of Roman Catholic freedestroy princes who have been excommu- holders. He, however, returned to us nicated by the Pope. Yet that passage is with the reply that the Government had surely offensive enough. The precise words had so much difficulty in obtaining assent -the Royal assent, I believe, being meant