that persuasion from an obligation which is
obviously superfluous and unnecessary, and
which is, moreover, objectionable, on the
ground that it partakes of the nature of
an insult to a larger portion of your fellow-
subjects. I recollect witnessing a scene
in this House when a question relating to
the Church Establishment came under con-
sideration which I thought most painful.
I saw the present Prime Minister of the
country come to the table and read the
Roman Catholic oath, laying great stress
on the words which it contains with respect
to the subversion of the Church Establish-
ment, and then say that he would go no
further, but leave it to the consciences of
Roman Catholic Members how they would
vote on the Motion under discussion.
There was in that proceeding, I cannot
help thinking, an obvious insinuation that,
in the noble Lord's opinion, certain Mem-
bers of the House of Commons might, if
the terms of the oath which they had
taken were not re-called to their attention,
perjure themselves in the course which
they might pursue with respect to the
question at issue. Let us, I beg of you,
be exempted from the risk of a repetition
of such a scene. Let all the Members of
the House come freely into it, and freely
vote according to their consciences. Your
institutions, you may rest assured, will not
be the less safe. Depend for their security
on freedom of discussion. Depend on truth
and the general interests of the country,
and not upon mere phrases in an oath.

hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last | me, in insulting terms, and, as has been paid a well-merited compliment to my hon. very fairly observed, provides no safeguard Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), whatsoever against that which it seeks to who declared that he felt himself bound by prevent. And this being the nature of the this oath not to give a direct vote for the oath, I feel no hesitation in saying that subversion of the Church Establishment; as you improved last year the form of oath but what, let me ask, is the position in taken by Members generally, so you ought which you place him? A Dissenter who this year-and that, too, irrespective of is the sincere advocate of the voluntary any claim made by Roman Catholics themprinciple thinks he is perfectly entitled-selves-to relieve your brother Members of and he is so in accordance with your laws -to introduce into this House a Bill whose object is to destroy the Church Establishment altogether, and yet there is among his fellow Members one who is precluded by his conscientious adherence to an oath from voting for such a measure. What, under those circumstances, becomes of the boasted equality of all Members of the House of Commons? Why is it that you place a restraint upon one while you allow another to be free. And now let me ask, in what does the security which the administration of this oath furnishes to your Church Establishment consist? Depend upon it if that Establishment should ever be subverted its fall will not be brought about by some thirty Roman Catholic Members, even though you should free them altogether from the obligation which you now impose upon them. It will be overthrown, if at all, by the votes of those Protestant Members who are the advocates of the voluntary principle, and who maintain that all State endowments for religious purposes are in themselves anti-Scriptural and wrong. That, no doubt, is a strong opinion to hold; but if such an opinion be entertained in the country, then I say let it be represented in the House of Commons, and fairly submitted to the test of argument; above all, do not contend that some hon. Gentlemen may be at liberty to express their views upon the subject while others are debarred from that privilege. As to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), I do not know what his sentiments upon the point may be, but if he thinks that the Irish or English Church Establishment ought to be subverted, I should, I confess, like to see him standing up in this House declaring his reasons for holding that opinion, and manfully voting according to his conscience; for I cannot imagine that the Church Establishment would be the weaker were the very false security of this oath to be abolished. The remaining portion of it, which calls upon a Member to swear that he takes it without equivocation, is couched, it appears to

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he had warned the House on previous occasions what would be the consequence of destroying the Christian character of the House, and accordingly they now found the noble Lord the Member for London supporting a proposal for relieving Roman Catholic Members from the obligation to abstain from attacking the Protestant institutions of the country. In 1847 the noble Lord declared that nothing could be more absurd than to refuse to allow the Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church to assume what titles they chose, derived from dis

tricts in this country; but in 1851 he should be asked to declare that they would came down to the House, and, as a not disturb the present settlement of prodistinguished Member of the then Govern-perty. ment, made a humble confession that, with respect to the Church of Rome, he had been entirely mistaken. With the classic poet, the noble Lord had said on that occasion"Urbem, quam dicunt Roman, Meliboe, putavi Stultus ego huic nostræ similem." And on the present occasion they again found the noble Lord, as in 1854, when the House rejected his Bill to same effect as the present Motion, seeking to disturb the settlement of 1829, which, whether compact or no compact, was that great settlement under which our Roman Catholic countrymen were placed in a position to assume many of the highest offices of the State, which in some instances he admitted that they adorned, and to take part in the deliberations of this House, which he was equally ready to confess they often did with great ability. Let him recall to the noble Lord's recollection what took place in 1851. In that year the noble Lord came down and asked the House to adopt certain measures for the defence of his Sovereign against the temporal aggression of the Court of Rome. And what was the result? Why, that the noble Lord found that the Roman Catholic Members of this House rendered him incapable of giving what he believed to be due satisfaction to the feelings of his Protestant fellow countrymen, and prevented his passing a measure adequate to guard the independence of this realm. The noble Lord now asked the House to repeal the provisions of the Roman Catholic oath, because he said that they were insulting. What were those provisions? The Roman Catholic on entering the House declared that he abjured the doctrine that Princes excommunicated by the Pope could be murdered by their subjects. Was the noble Lord ignorant of the fact, that there were influential writers in France- and where there were writers there must be readers -who within the last three or four years had avowed the doctrine of conversion by the sword. These men-eminent writers such as M. Veuillot-had lamented Luther had not been burnt as Huss was burnt, and persecution was not carried out against Protestants by the faggot and the sword. The old sword of persecution was not dead. It lingered in France; it was maintained in Naples: why should not our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen denounce it? The noble Lord complained that the Roman Catholics

Well, they had the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion, that they were content with that settlement; why, then, should they object to avow it? But the necessity for this portion of the oath was apparent from the fact-he cited Dr. Wordsworth for his authority-that there were preserved in the Jesuit College at Paris to this day maps of the old distribution of Irish property. And next, with regard to the Protestant Church, was there no ground for calling upon Roman Catholics to declare that they would do nothing to subvert or weaken the establishment, when, according to Cardinal Wiseman's own avowal, the object of his mission was to re-establish the Church of Rome in place of the Church of England -the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Church and its supremacy, to the destruction of our Protestant Church and its supremacy. For his part, he could not see what there was to complain of in the oath if hon. Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion honestly meant to abide by the conditions upon which they had been admitted to seats in that House. Surely those conditions were no more grievous now than they were at the time Roman Catholics accepted them he did not mean to say by compact, but that these conditions were accepted by the whole body of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. Indeed, he knew some Roman Catholics who rejoiced in the restrictions contained in this oath, several had said to him, "It is happier to live a Roman Catholic under a Protestant Government, than a Roman Catholic under a Roman Catholic Government." He would cite Naples; he would cite Austria; he would cite the State of Rome in proof of this truth. Speaking then, in the sense of such Roman Catholics as the late Duke of Norfolk and the late Lord Beaumont, in the sense of Roman Catholics before the Jesuit power was dominant in Rome; in the sense of the Roman Catholic priests who had been formerly educated liberally abroad, not educated as the Jesuits contrived that the Roman Catholic priests should be now educated at Clongowes, where they were taught to chafe at many circumstances of their own country as proofs of oppression that they would not have deemed such if they were educated abroad; speaking in the sense of liberal Roman Catholics free

from the influence of suggestive grieving, at an early period of the present ances, he held that it would be unwise Session, the pledge he gave in the last. to relieve them from the protection of An hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Adams) those obligations which they voluntarily had said that he trusted that there would undertook when they entered this House. be from all parts of Ireland an indignant He remembered the noble Lord address- repudiation of this attempt to disturb the ing the young men of Bristol, a year or serenity of the Legislature. Now, he two since, and recommending them to read knew the feelings of his countrymen, and history, especially that of their own country. he could say that among conscientious That advice had made a deep impression Protestants as well as among Roman upon him (Mr. Newdegate), and he now Catholics, there prevailed a feeling of inasked the noble Lord if he meant to say dignation against the continuance of a that Rome had changed, or that she was portion of the oath at present imposed on more tolerant than heretofore. Again, he Roman Catholic Members. He was a said, "Look at Naples! Look at Rome!" member of a corporation which had done He would no longer trouble the House; much for the improvement of the city but this he would say, that if the noble whose affairs it administered. Many Roman Lord believed, because a Bill had been Catholics exercised functions in that corpopassed to discontinue the commemoration ration, who had yet practically violated the of the 5th of November, that the spirit law, by acting without having taken the which dictated that attack against free required oath; and so tolerant and liberal Government were dead, he little knew were the Protestant Members, that they the spirit which now actuated so many abstained from requiring the Roman on the Continent; and remembering the Catholic Members to take an insulting speech of the noble Lord in the debate oath merely as a qualification for paving. on the Address, in which he spoke of the lighting, or cleansing the city. That was tyranny of Rome as practised on the in- a practical proof that the oath had, to a habitants of that unhappy city; he felt certain extent, fallen into disuse with the that the noble Lord did ill in asking the assent of persons at least as strongly House to cast away those safeguards which Protestant in feeling as the hon. Memhad been so long acquiesced in by the ber for North Warwickshire. He would Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty. put it to that hon. Gentleman, as a man of honour and sense, whether the Roman Catholics in that House ought to be satisfied with their present political and legal standing in it. Supposing the Protestants were in a minority in the House, and were placed in the same position as the Catholics now were by the words of an offensive oath, would they have the feelings of men if they quietly submitted to the indignity of being com

MR. MAGUIRE observed, that when the time came for the discussion of what was the character of temporal Roman Catholic Government, there were persons in that House who would be ready to discuss that question. The question in reference to the oaths taken by the Members of that House, which was before the House last year, was whether or not the Jews were to be emancipated; but an important question also arose as to whether Pro-pelled to confess that they were morally, testant Members should not be relieved from unnecessary portions of the oath they were required to take; and when this question of the oaths generally was discussed, Roman Catholic Members abstained from seizing that opportunity of pressing their own grievances on the attention of the Legislature, being unwilling to interfere with the consideration of the just rights of the Jews; and all the Roman Catholic Members voted for the emancipation of their Jewish fellow-subjects. In taking that course, they merely followed out the policy they had adopted since the date of their own emancipation; and now he thought that his right hon. and learned Friend was perfectly justified in redeem

socially, and politically inferior to the other Members? It was said there were no petitions on the subject; but had there been petitions, it would have been the same, for then they would have been sneered at in the old stereotyped fashion. The question was not whether there were petitions in favour of the demand, but the question was whether the demand was right or wrong. He was ready to swear allegiance to his Sovereign. He was heart and soul a monarchist, because he thought a liberal monarchy the best form of Government. Every Roman Catholic who accepted office was ready to swear allegiance to the Throne. and what more should be asked? Why should a man be asked to swear that he

Gentleman deliberately accused the troops been long connected with constituencies of firing on an unarmed mob and stabbing prejudiced against those who professed the innocent men. He did not like to trouble Roman Catholic religion, and who was not the Ilouse with a quotation, but, not trust- a Member of the Cabinet. ing his own memory, he had referred to the pages of "Hansard," which were acknowledged to give an impartial and correct account of what passed in the House, and it would be found that in his observations there was not the slightest reference to the religion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. After alluding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman having for two hours defended one of the grossest outrages ever known, he was reported to have said

MR. WALPOLE: Sir, before we come to a decision I wish to state, in a very few words, the reasons which will influence the vote I am about to give. I have listened to this debate with some degree of pain. I have thought that with the end of last Session we should have terminated all these discussions upon the taking of oaths. I think I had good reason to hope that we might have expected a truce upon such a subject, for at the time when we deliberated on the oaths to be taken by hon. Members in this House we settled the form for those who are called Protestant Members, combining the three oaths in one. We settled that form for the purpose of doing away with superfluous and obsolete passages, which really diminish the solemnity, I almost may say the sanctity, with which those oaths were taken. Towards the close of the discussion of last year the question was raised whether the Roman Catholic oath should be altered. It was debated in this House, and it was decided in the negative by a large majority, of which the noble Lord opposite, I think, was one. Unfortunately, however, the discussion of this question of the oath to be taken by hon. Members has not been allowed to terminate with last year. The noble Lord has argued it to-night on grounds which would be equally applicable against the taking of almost any oath, certainly on grounds which would assume that we were now considering, what ought to be the oath

"If the Government wanted that prosecution to go on, and if they wanted it to be conducted in an impartial manner, let them put it into other hands. He charged them not to let that investigation be carried on by one who, whatever his merits and he (Lord C. Hamilton) acknowledged the hon. and learned Member had legal talent had on the occasion to which he had just referred, made a fatal and unfortunate exhibition of partiality, and preferred charges against the magistrates, the soldiery, and the constabulary, which would remain in evidence against him so long as that House existed."—[3 Hansard, cxlvii. 635]. Those were the grounds upon which he did not conceive that the prosecution of a similar case should be committed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hands, but from first to last he never alluded to his religious views. He had never done so, and he never would. He had the honour to represent 3,000 Roman Catholic voters, and they knew him too well to suppose that he would disqualify any person because he belonged to this or that persuasion. There never was a more extraor-imposed. In arguing as to the force of dinary distortion than that which had been the oath upon the consciences of hon. made by the right hon. and learned Gentle- Members, he seemed to say, "You have man, and he had therefore felt bound to no right to appeal to any hon. Member as offer to the House this explanation. to the course which he shall take on any particular subject, by the oath which he has taken." But when he argues whether this is or is not the best form of oath which can be taken, I beg leave to point out to him that that is not the question which we are now discussing. If we were framing a new oath it is very possible that we might frame a better; but the question before us is whether there is any good reason for altering that form of oath which was imposed in 1829, and which Sir Robert Peel always told the Roman Catholics in this House was the condition of their admission here. Unless you have strong reason for the alteration, you will create in the minds of the Protestant people of this

MR. P. O'BRIEN said, that if he had not been well acquainted with the character of the noble Lord he should have imagined that he had been put up to withdraw attention from the subject before the House. The Motion was opposed only upon the ground of a compact, and there was no argument on that which did not equally apply to the introduction of a Reform Bill. He thought that one of the leading Members of the Government was bound to tell them whether, on the narrow grounds of expediency or compact, they would oppose this reasonable demand. At present they had only had the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, who had