MR. FREVILLE SURTEESmoved, "That the Oath taken by Roman Catholic Members previous to the alteration of the Oath on the 30th of April, 1866, be read by the Clerk at the Table."
§ MR. BOUVERIEI rise to order. I am not about to speak upon the question my right hon. Friend has raised; but I apprehend that the practice of the House is clear. Any portion of an Act of Parliament that is in existence the Clerk may be called upon to read, provided that it be relevant to the subject-matter of debate. But something which has been repealed by Parliament, and which has no existence whatever on the statute book, he can be no more called upon to read than to read a passage from Hume's History of England, or any other book.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe only argument that could be urged for the Motion would be that there are some Members in the House who took the Oath in its original form.
MR. FREVILLE SURTEESI apprehend that the Oath taken in 1865 by those Members who did then take it is still binding.
MR. GLADSTONEThen I oppose the question upon its merits. I was so far sensible of the point raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) that I did intend before proceeding to say anything to satisfy myself by a reference to you, Sir, that I am not interfering with a known and undoubted privilege of Members of this House. But it is the policy of this Motion to which I rise to object. My right hon. Friend has justly stated that this Oath is part of a law not now in force. Under such circumstances, it is enough for me, I think, to say that there is not the presumptive title to the reading of it at the table which there would be if it were a Law actually in force. And if there be no such presumptive title, and I am to ask myself with what object this Motion is made, and what good it can possibly produce if it were read, it appears to me to be only an 1583 attempt to stir up the embers of religious animosity, to narrow the privileges of Members of the House, and not only so, but to place what would seem to be the opinion of the House — though it might only be the opinion of the hon. Member himself — between the Roman Catholic Members of the House and the great and solemn duty they are now called upon to perform,—a duty which I trust and believe they will perform, exercising precisely the same powers and rights, and with exactly the same scope and breadth of freedom given to them as appertains to any one.
§ MR. DISRAELII will not attempt, Sir, to argue in favour of the objection raised by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock after your decision. But I confess I entirely sympathized with the objection taken; and I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Freville Surtees) will not persist in his Motion. If he wishes to refer to the historical document he has now asked for, he can do that in his speech. Every one must feel that every Roman Catholic Member is equitably bound to conform to the existing law, and to that alone. But I would remind my hon. Friend that it is in his power if he likes to refer in his speech to the document in question. I hope, therefore, he will not place this House in the position of going to a division in which, no doubt, the great Majority of Members Would be upon the one side.
MR. FREVILLE SURTEESYou, Sir, have ruled that the Roman Catholic Members who took the Oath before the 30th of April, 1866, are bound by the Oath taken by Roman Catholic Members previously to that time, I beg to withdraw my Motion. ["No, no!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has misconceived my meaning, I gave no such decision as he apprehends. The House has undertaken to decide the Motion on its merits.
§ Question put, and negatived.