considerable confidence when I say that many Members of the House at this moment feel themselves in the same way bound in honour by this oath. What is the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes? He wishes to have this oath abrogated, because he desires to be free to do the very thing the oath was framed to prevent. He says, in effect "We desire to be perfectly free to attack the Established Church, to overthrow it when we can, where we can, and how we can; and because we find this oath an impediment in our way we desire to remove it." Member for Waterford (Mr. Hassard) has told us that he was unfortunately prevented by an accident from moving his Resolution on Friday, which, if done, would have allowed the Committee to go into the subject to day. I go even farther than the hon. Member for Waterford. I would like to see, not a uniform oath, but a uniform declaration, from all Members of the House. At present some hon. Members of the House are unable to take an oath, but they are allowed to make a declaration. I do not see, if the hon. Member for the Borough of Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) goes to the table and makes a declaration of allegiance, why the Member for the County of Northampton (Mr. Hunt) should not do the same. The hon. Member for Northampton objects to taking an oath. I do not; but I consider a declaration in my case just as good as an oath. I draw a distinction between a promissory oath and an oath to give true evidence. When you take an oath in a court of justice to speak all you know, you are aware of all the circumstances "I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost that can affect your mind at the time; of my power the settlement of property within this Realm, as established by the Laws; and I but when you take an oath as to your do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure future conduct, you take an oath without any intention to subvert the present Church knowing what the circumstances may Establishment, as settled by Law within this be, which may influence your mind when Realm; and I do solemnly swear, that I never the time comes for action. will exercise any privilege to which I am or may I should I trust the Committee will not assent to the proposition so openly avowed, and so completely antagonistic to the purpose for which the oath was originally introduced. In proposing to add to the clause the words of which I have given notice, I am simply moving to restore the oath, so far as it relates to the Established Church, to the form given to it in the year 1829. Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, after the word "Realm," to insert the words, become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant Religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom.”—(Sir Hugh Cairns.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added." MR. HUNT: Sir, it is with great regret that I differ from my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down; and I feel anxious not to give a silent vote upon this subject. I have always fought with him in support of the Established Church, and I hope to do so again, and therefore, I am anxious not to lie under the imputation of being a supposed enemy of the Church by voting against his Amendment. My hon. pos and learned Friend has alluded to the sibility of some uniform oath being framed in a future Parliament in lieu of that now taken. I was in hope there was no need for delay, but that we might have taken advantage of this golden opportunity, and by sweeping away all marks of religious differences between persons coming to that table have handed down a glorious legacy from an expiring Parliament to its successor. For myself, I do not despair of seeing such an oath introduced and carried during the present Session. The hon. like to see all promissory oaths done away The hon. Mem ber for Belfast puts it to the House of the Prussians. tain hon. Members will be deterred from taking a certain course. Now, I think that every Member of the House ought to be free and competent to vote on any question whatever. I think it tenable ground to say that the Roman Catholics should not be admitted to the House at all; but to say we will admit Members into the House, into a deliberative Assembly, and to add that they should vote only on particular subjects, or if they did vote on others that they should vote only in a particular way, is to impose disabilities of a highly objectionable character. And then would arise the question, who were to be the judges of the questions which the Roman Catholics should be allowed to vote on? There would be great difficulty in this matter. There was an instance quoted the other night by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard). The noble Lord said that many Members were of opinion that it was for the interest of the Church that church rates should be abolished; and, therefore, that hon. Members, notwithstanding the oath, might vote for their abolition. I ar am of a contrary opinion; and I think, therefore, that voting for the abolition of church rates would be a violation of that oath. But why should Roman Catholic Members be put in this position of doubt and perplexity? I say again, the Roman Catholic Member when he comes to this House ought to be able to give his vote on every subject that comes before the House. My hon. and learned Friend said that the oath had prevented Roman Catholic Members from voting on several occasions. But, if so, I say that is a reason for abolishing it. On a former occasion my hon. and learned Friend reminded the House that they were not imposing the oath for the first time. Well, that is an important admission. If it meant anything it meant that he would not insert the words in a new oath. But if the words-imposed under particular circumstances in 1829-were unreasonable or improper now, was that a reason why we should retain them? It is said that there was a compact in 1829. Well, I can understand that at that time the Roman Catholics were willing to come in on any terms. Persons for a long time barred out in the cold would not be unwilling to sit at the hospitable board within, even if they sat below the salt. But is it fair and generous to keep them to the terms of this bad bargain? I am prepared to place Roman Catholics on the footing of other Members by enabling them to vote on all subjects; and I shall, therefore, vote against the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend. MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it appears to me that the unmistakable tendency of public opinion in the last few years has been to meet the claims of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in a spirit of rational conciliation, and I ascribe that general tendency of public opinion to causes which, at the time, were calculated, I think, to lead us to believe that a very different result might be brought about. I attribute it to those circumstances popularly known as the "Papal aggression." At that time those who were then in the House will remember that what happened was really so misconceived, and I may be permitted, speaking historically, to add, so mismanaged by the Government of the day, that it did appear that there was a prospect before us of a prolongation of that religious rancour which it was the hope of the great majority of the nation had passed away. When the Prime Minister of the country appeared in his place in this House and informed us with all the authority of official responsibility that in the opinion of the Government there was a decided Papal conspiracy against the liberties of Europe, and that the ecclesiastical arrangements which had then taken place were part and parcel of that conspiracy, it appeared to us all that we were approaching a period of religious exasperation which would probably again disturb and darken society, for some time emancipating itself from that fatal influence. On the contrary, our expectations were happily disappointed. The result of that important event appears to have been exactly the contrary of what was expected. The result was really that it made the country much more tolerant than before; and that may be ascribed to this cause. There was so unmistakable a demonstration of Protestant feeling in England, a sentiment so profound, so fervent, and so extensive in favour of our Protestant institutions, that when the hubbub was over, and the excitement had subsided, there was a disposition to look on the claims of the Roman Catholics without distrust, to view them with candour, and to meet them in a spirit of conciliation. I believed at that time, and, from information which has reached me from many eminent members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, I believe now, that all that the great majority of the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, really desired, and what they now desire, is that they should enjoy the full and free remember that the Established Church in exercise of their religion. I believe that by leading men of all parties and by the the Roman Catholics did not desire to great majority of this House and of the obtain more; and I believe that the great country as just and desirable, no course body of their Protestant fellow-subjects could be taken more opposed to the fulfildid not desire to grant less. But, unfor- ment of this expectation than an attack on tunately, there are extreme parties on the Established Church of this country. both sides. There is, Sir, an extreme Into the question of the Established Church Protestant party, and there is an extreme in England I do not now wish to enter. Roman Catholic party, and their views I would speak of the Established Church differ from the views which are, I believe, in Ireland, and I will confine myself the convictions, opinions, and sentiments to that point. That Church underwent of the great majority of Her Majesty's some thirty years ago, in the memory of subjects, whether Protestants or Roman many Members of this House, a very stern Catholics. There is an extreme Protestant and severe revision. Its wealth, always party who persist in believing that every exaggerated, was then much diminished, Roman Catholic is a Jesuit. There is, and when diminished was distributed in a on the other hand, an extreme Roman manner which tended greatly to its inCatholic party who, the moment their creased utility and efficiency. I should aggressive indiscretion excites comment and perhaps a little distrust, immediately raise a howl that their Protestant fellow countrymen wish to revive all the Roman Catholic disabilities. Now, if the opinions of either of these sections were predominant in this country the government of Her Majesty's dominions would be impossible. Fortunately, although noisy and bustling, they are limited in their influence, and the general sentiment of the country controls their violence and extravagance. What may be called the Gulf Stream of common-sense softens and subdues their violence and asperity. Hitherto we have succeeded-no doubt with some difficulty and with constant misrepresentation and misconception-but hitherto we have succeeded in supporting and realizing on both sides the policy which commenced in 1829, and which the general opinion of this country recognized as being sound, politic, and just. The violent section of the Roman Catholic party have always thought that they could advance their views by attacking the Established Church, and especially by attacking the Established Church in Ireland. I must, Sir, express my opinion, wishing to view the case in the same manner as an enlightened and patriotic member of the Roman Catholic party might do, that that is a very great error-I mean that it is a course which very much injures the advance of those views which have been on both sides recognized as just and desirable. If I might be permitted to view the question as a Roman Catholic Member, I should say that, being devoted to my religion, being anxious to obtain that full, fair, and free exercise of that religion which has been recognized If I were the character I have contemplatedand it is not a rare one-I mean an enlightened Member of the Roman Catholic body, I would look at the question of the Irish Church apart from ecclesiastical and spiritual considerations; I would look at it both as a politician and a statesman. should remember, in the first place, that if there be anything which the experience of the last thirty years has proved; if there be any conviction which all our debates, our investigations, our Commissions of Inquiry, and our prolonged discussions have demonstrated, it is this-that what you want in Ireland is to create and not to destroy. And, under these circumstances, how far would the advancement and improvement of Ireland be favoured, if, by subverting the Established Church the immediate result would be to withdraw the beneficial influence of a body of enlightened men | the House in what position Parliament spread over the country, distinguished, was this year with reference to the Irish even by the admission of their opponents, Church. We knew very well that an for their piety and their active virtues? I association had been formed in Ireland, the would even press the case a little further, main object of which was the subversion of and I trust the Roman Catholic Mem- the Established Church in that country. bers of the House will not find fault with It was founded by the Roman Catholic me for doing so. I have no wish to insult hierarchy, and the most eminent prelate of their religion. On the contrary, I respect the Roman Catholic Church, both for talent their ancient faith and the venerable see and authority, presided over its first assemto which they defer. But I would ask bly. I may be told and have been told, them to recollect that thirty years ago and have heard with much satisfaction, Roman Catholicism made a partnership that that meeting and that association were with modern Liberalism, the object of no evidence whatever of the feeling of the which was the destruction of the Estab-great Roman Catholic body. But I ask lished Church in Ireland. That compact my Roman Catholic Colleagues in this House and confederacy were carried on under to put themselves in our position, and the most favourable circumstances. In ascertain what their feelings would be if consequence of it they have virtually had they found themselves in a situation somethe government of England during the last what analogous. Suppose there was an thirty years. They have, with scarcely an association in this country formed by the interval, dictated the policy of England, bench of bishops and presided over by the and greatly influenced the policy of Europe. Archbishop of Canterbury, and supported And what has been the consequence of the by parties in authority, which was to pass alliance between Roman Catholicism and strong and vehement resolutions; that, in modern Liberalism on the Established consequence of the undoubted progress of the Church in Ireland ? The Established Roman Catholic religion, it was necessary Church in Ireland still exists. It has suf- that we should revive the Roman Catholic fered no diminution in its influence, or disabilities. It might be shown to them decrease in its strength. I may, without that none of the influential men of the exaggeration, say that its moral autho- Tory party belonged to such association, rity has increased, and that those who yet they would say, "If your bishops origiminister to its offices are generally recog-nated and the Primate presided at a meeting nized as a body of men who for their piety and learning, and for the fulfilment of the higher and loftier purposes of existence, are not second to any body of clergy in the world. But, may I ask my Roman Catholic Colleagues in this House what has been the effect of the alliance upon another Church, and one possessing their affectionate devotion. I will not paint the consequences of that compact. I will leave them to the consciences of Roman Catholic Members. They are fresh in their memory. The result has been to all but destroy the temporal power, and in some degree endanger the spiritual authority of that ancient throne, the fall of which, for the sake of European peace and for considerations connected with this country is, I hold to be, regarded with apprehension. We know not the day that a telegram may not arrive announcing the fatal result of the policy adopted by the Roman Catholic population of this country for the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. That being the view which a candid and enlightened Roman Catholic might be likely to take of this question, allow me to remind It which passed such resolutions it is impos- internecine hostilities between Christian | O'Connell or Mr. Sheil, who, with all the churches, and I should have thought that ardour of public life, might not have been Roman Catholics would have hesitated to very curious as to the terms on which they attack any Christian Church though agreed to obtain so sovereign a result. such Church were not in communion But we must also look to the opinions of with themselves. Under these circum- other men, and when I see one so distinstances, the right hon. Member for Lime- guished for his purity of character, for his rick (Mr. Monsell) has come forward and learning and high intelligence, and statesasked you to repeal the Roman Catholic manlike qualities as Archbishop Murray, oath. I entirely acquit the right hon. I cannot agree that the grave advice given Gentleman of any sinister design. I am by Archbishop Murray corresponds with quite convinced, from what I know of his the spirit and sentiment attributed by my character, that whether this were the first hon. Friend to the Roman Catholics who or the last year of Parliament, and with- accepted this oath. You cannot interout reference to any political considerations, pret the public documents of an ancient the right hon. Gentleman would have taken country like England as you would the the first or the best opportunity that offered à priori documents of a new society for submitting the question in which he is reared in the backwoods. Every public warmly interested to our consideration. document in this country-and of all It was perfectly competent for any hon. public documents, oaths-must be of an Gentleman to bring such a Motion forward. historic character. The oath that the It has been raised in this House before, Roman Catholics now take was framed if not in the present, in the last Parliament, from other oaths drawn up in other Parliaand the question is one which any hon. ments, and I believe even in Irish ParliaGentleman, whatever his political or reli- ments. They refer to great historic events; gious views, was justified at any time in and when you have had in an ancient bringing forward. Nor is it a question country contending dynasties, conflicting which any one who studies political life churches, civil wars, it is totally impossible could suppose would not some day or other that in public documents you will not find be brought under our consideration. Under expressions indicating events, no doubt these circumstances, Sir, we have to con- sources of great sorrow and regret, to sider the course which we ought to take. many gentlemen, especially to those who I myself object to the Bill as originally profess the Roman Catholic faith. brought forward by the right hon. Gen- this may be said of the Roman Catholic tleman. I think it an error to have made gentry, not only of England but of Iresuch a Motion. The Roman Catholic oath, land, that there is nothing in these exas it now exists, contains nothing which a pressions that can bring shame upon them. gentleman might not take. No one will We are indebted to the Roman Catholic contend for a moment that it contains any- gentry of the United Kingdom, as much thing which a gentleman of the highest as to any portion of the population of this honour and the nicest feelings might not country, both for having built up its libertake. I can myself truly say that if I were ties and having given illustrious instances a Roman Catholic I should never hesitate of loyalty to their Sovereign. Sir, this is for a moment in taking that oath. Although not the only objection I entertain to this I might prefer another form of oath, 1 matter being brought forward. It concould not find in the form of it as it now cerns a speculative and not a practical exists any obstacle to taking my seat in grievance; it is likely to create alarm, this House. We must remember this. likely to create prejudice, and likely to My hon. Friend who has just addressed prevent the passing of measures which the House seems to think that the oath might have been of practical advantage to was carelessly accepted by the Roman the Roman Catholics. I object, also, to Catholics at the time of the passing of the this measure having been brought forward Emancipation Act without criticism or by an individual Member. I think, when cavil because they were influenced by the measures of this kind are proposed, they great political result which they could only should not be brought forward by indiobtain on that condition. Now, I must vidual Members; but if they are brought say that does not appear to me an accurate forward by an individual Member, I think statement of the circumstances of the it most unfortunate they should be, as in I will not too strictly criticize the this particular case, by an individual Memconduct of great political leaders like Mr. ber professing the Roman Catholic faith. case. But |