[BILL 86.] COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 12 June 1865 vol 180 cc46-86

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Form of Oath.)

MR. HASSARD

said, that in consequence of the count-out on Friday night he was prevented from moving that it should be an instruction to the Committee to draw up one uniform oath to be taken by Members of that House. He understood it was incompetent for him to move now the Amendments of which he had given notice.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

Sir, in rising to propose an alteration in line 32 of this clause I shall not feel it necessary to make any lengthened observations, having stated on a former evening the reasons which induced me to offer this Amendment to the Committee. The Bill originally was introduced on the ground that certain provisions in the oath taken by Roman Catholic Members were unnecessary and offensive, and attention was directed more particularly to that portion of the oath where the person taking it is made to declare that he doth— Renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion that persons excommunicated by the Pope or other authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or other persons whatever, It was said, "You there make a Roman Catholic Member of the House depose that he disavows that which he does not admit ever was a tenet of the Church to which he belongs; and you make him do what is tantamount to saving that he does not intend to commit murder himself or countenance it in others—a demand which is directly offensive." Now, that has always seemed to me a very sound view of the case; and, accordingly, I was very glad to see that passage omitted from the earlier part of the proposed oath. In like manner, the latter part of the oath necessitates the repudiation of any intention to equivacate, evade, or use mental reservation— an assumption which Roman Catholic Members held it was an insult to a man of honour to put forward. The provision is offensive and unnecessary, and, therefore, I think it ought to be omitted. Up to that point I entirely go with those who propose this Bill, but there, I am afraid, my agreement with them stops. There is another part to which the arguments employed in bringing forward this Bill have no application whatever, and that is the part of the oath I propose shall be restored. It makes the person who takes it declare as follows:— 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; 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. The Committee will observe that we are not engaged in composing one uniform form of oath for every Member of this House, though whether it may be the will of the House in a future Session to entertain that question I have no means of knowing. The work upon which we are engaged is simply the modification of the Roman Catholic oath; and the question is, how we are to remove from the oath everything which is unnecessary and everything which is offensive, at the same time preserving all that is substantial and all that designates the purpose and the end for which the oath in the first instance was introduced. In that view of the case I cannot help thinking that no argument has been advanced for omitting that portion of the oath which I ask the Committee to restore. The only one I have heard attempted has been this—that the defence of the Church, of the Protestant religion, of Protestant institutions in this country, does not rest on an oath of this description, but on far higher grounds. I quite agree that the defence of the Church and of the Protestant institutions of this country rest on higher grounds—on the affections of the people, and on the persuasion entertained by the great majority that those institutions and that Church are best calculated for the happiness and welfare of the people. But I ask the Committee to observe how much too far the argument I have mentioned goes. In the oath which we propose to pass I find this provision— I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an Act intituled An Act for the Further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. You might just as well apply the argument here, and say the succession to the Crown does not depend on the oath to be taken by individual Members of Parliament, but on the loyal affections of the subjects of this country, and on the feeling pervading the whole of this land that the succession which has conferred blessings without number upon the country is not one they would willingly surrender. Yet we do take this oath as a mark and pledge from those having seats in this House that they will defend the succession which has become the established succession in this country. And in the same way it was as one of the guarantees for the security of the Established Church, not merely the branch of the Established Church in Ireland, but the Established Church as a whole—it was, I say, as one of the guarantees for the maintenance of the Protestant Government and of the Protestant religion in every part of the Kingdom, that this oath was introduced in the year 1829, and formed part of the terms upon which our Roman Catholic fellow subjects obtained seats in this House. As to its having proved efficacious in its operation, I will not trouble the House with a repetition of various instances which have been already brought under its notice. I might advert by name to the declarations, not of those who still sit with us, but of others who have passed from us, that this oath did prevent them from entering upon any aggressions on the Established Church and Protestant Institutions of the country; and though I cannot of course mention names, I speak with 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. 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, 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; 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."—(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. and learned Friend has alluded to the possibility 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. 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 today. 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 that can affect your mind at the time; but when you take an oath as to your future conduct, you take an oath without knowing what the circumstances may be, which may influence your mind when the time comes for action. I should like to see all promissory oaths done away with, and a declaration substituted. You, Sir, have ruled that we cannot so alter the Bill in its present stage, but I think it can be done on a future occasion, and I hope the House will consent to its being done. If in 1865 the House re-imposes a distinctive oath on Roman Catholics, we may be interposing an obstacle to the future consideration of the larger question of the substitution for oath of a general declaration. The hon. Member for Belfast puts it to the House that this oath is a great bulwark to the Established Church, and he is therefore anxious to preserve it. Now, I do not consider it any bulwark at all. I regard it as an obsolete, a clumsy, and a worn-out contrivance. It will be the same sort of defence as the Dannewerke was to the Danes, when expecting an attack by the rifled guns of the Prussians. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) says that, so long as we keep up this prohibition, certain 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 j 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 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 exercise of their religion. I believe that the Roman Catholics did not desire to obtain more; and I believe that the great body of their Protestant fellow-subjects did not desire to grant less. But, unfortunately, there are extreme parties on both sides. There is, Sir, an extreme Protestant party, and there is an extreme Roman Catholic party, and their views differ from the views which are, I believe, the convictions, opinions, and sentiments of the great majority of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics. There is an extreme Protestant party who persist in believing that every Roman Catholic is a Jesuit. There is, on the other hand, an extreme Roman Catholic party who, the moment their 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 by leading men of all parties and by the great majority of this House and of the country as just and desirable, no course could be taken more opposed to the fulfilment of this expectation than an attack on the Established Church of this country. Into the question of the Established Church in England I do not now wish to enter. I would speak of the Established Church in Ireland, and I will confine myself to that point. That Church underwent some thirty years ago, in the memory of many Members of this House, a very stern and severe revision. Its wealth, always exaggerated, was then much diminished, and when diminished was distributed in a manner which tended greatly to its increased utility and efficiency. I should remember that the Established Church in Ireland really rested upon the spiritual sympathies, if not of a majority of the country, still on the spiritual sympathies of a very considerable minority, not to be estimated by numbers merely or by being in strict communion with that Church, and I should remember also that that very numerous minority were distinguished by their intelligence, by their property, by their zeal, and by a firmness of character which is universally recognized. I should remember, also, that totally irrespective of those circumstances peculiar to Ireland, it is a fact that the Established Church in Ireland has never been seriously menaced by the Roman Catholics without exciting and developing in this country the latent sympathies of millions of the population, which proves how deeply and keenly they are interested in its maintenance. If I were the character I have contemplated—and 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. I 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 spread over the country, distinguished, even by the admission of their opponents, for their piety and their active virtues? I would even press the case a little further, and I trust the Roman Catholic Members of the House will not find fault with me for doing so. I have no wish to insult their religion. On the contrary, I respect their ancient faith and the venerable see to which they defer. But I would ask them to recollect that thirty years ago Roman Catholicism made a partnership with modern Liberalism, the object of which was the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. That compact and confederacy were carried on under the most favourable circumstances. In consequence of it they have virtually had the government of England during the last thirty years. They have, with scarcely an interval, dictated the policy of England, and greatly influenced the policy of Europe. And what has been the consequence of the alliance between Roman Catholicism and modern Liberalism on the Established Church in Ireland? The Established Church in Ireland still exists. It has suffered no diminution in its influence, or decrease in its strength. I may, without exaggeration, say that its moral authority has increased, and that those who minister to its offices are generally recognized 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 Bake 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 the House in what position Parliament was this year with reference to the Irish Church. We knew very well that an association had been formed in Ireland, the main object of which was the subversion of the Established Church in that country. It was founded by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the most eminent prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, both for talent and authority, presided over its first assembly. I may be told and have been told, and have heard with much satisfaction, that that meeting and that association were no evidence whatever of the feeling of the great Roman Catholic body. But I ask my Roman Catholic Colleagues in this House to put themselves in our position, and ascertain what their feelings would be if they found themselves in a situation somewhat analogous. Suppose there was an association in this country formed by the bench of bishops and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and supported by parties in authority, which was to pass strong and vehement resolutions; that, in consequence of the undoubted progress of the Roman Catholic religion, it was necessary that we should revive the Roman Catholic disabilities. It might be shown to them that none of the influential men of the Tory party belonged to such association, yet they would say, "If your bishops originated and the Primate presided at a meeting which passed such resolutions it is impossible to deny that that was a meeting representing Protestant feeling in the country, and we must take measures to defend our own interests." And who would blame them? That, unfortunately, we know was the state of things when Parliament met. Then came a debate, still open, the subject of which is the subversion of the Established Church in Ireland. It was not certainly introduced by a Roman Catholic Member, but with the greatest consistency by an hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn), who has a right to make Motions against all possible churches. Roman Catholic Members supported that Motion. I am sorry that they did so. I am astonished that such a thing should have happened, because it is impossible for us to be perfectly blind to the signs of the times in which we live. The signs of the times in which we live are not like the signs of the times thirty years ago, when compacts were entered into between Roman Catholics and Liberals for the destruction of the Established Church. The existing signs of the times are not favourable to internecine hostilities between Christian churches, And I should have thought that Roman Catholics would have hesitated to attack any Christian Church though such Church were not in communion with themselves. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) has come forward and asked you to repeal the Roman Catholic oath. I entirely acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any sinister design. I am quite convinced, from what I know of his character, that whether this were the first or the last year of Parliament, and without reference to any political considerations, the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the first or the best opportunity that offered for submitting the question in which he is warmly interested to our consideration. It was perfectly competent for any hon. Gentleman to bring such a Motion forward. It has been raised in this House before, if not in the present, in the last Parliament, and the question is one which any hon. Gentleman, whatever his political or religious views, was justified at any time in bringing forward. Nor is it a question which any one who studies political life could suppose would not some day or other be brought under our consideration. Under these circumstances. Sir, we have to consider the course which we ought to take. I myself object to the Bill as originally brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it an error to have made such a Motion. The Roman Catholic oath, as it now exists, contains nothing which a gentleman might not take. No one will contend for a moment that it contains anything which a gentleman of the highest honour and the nicest feelings might not take. I can myself truly say that if I were a Roman Catholic I should never hesitate for a moment in taking that oath. Although I might prefer another form of oath, I could not find in the form of it as it now exists any obstacle to taking my seat in this House. We must remember this. My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House seems to think that the oath was carelessly accepted by the Roman Catholics at the time of the passing of the Emancipation Act without criticism or cavil because they were influenced by the great political result which they could only obtain on that condition. Now, I must say that does not appear to me an accurate statement of the circumstances of the case. I will not too strictly criticize the conduct of great political leaders like Mr. O'Connell or Mr. Sheil, who, with all the ardour of public life, might not have been very curious as to the terms on which they agreed to obtain so sovereign a result. But we must also look to the opinions of other men, and when I see one so distinguished for his purity of character, for his learning and high intelligence, and statesmanlike qualities as Archbishop Murray, I cannot agree that the grave advice given by Archbishop Murray corresponds with the spirit and sentiment attributed by my hon. Friend to the Roman Catholics who accepted this oath. You cannot interpret the public documents of an ancient country like England as you would the àpriori documents of a new society reared in the backwoods. Every public document in this country—and of all public documents, oaths—must be of an historic character. The oath that the Roman Catholics now take was framed from other oaths drawn up in other Parliaments, and I believe even in Irish Parliaments. They refer to great historic events; and when you have had in an ancient country contending dynasties, conflicting churches, civil wars, it is totally impossible that in public documents you will not find expressions indicating events, no doubt sources of great sorrow and regret, to many gentlemen, especially to those who profess the Roman Catholic faith. But this may be said of the Roman Catholic gentry, not only of England but of Ireland, that there is nothing in these expressions that can bring shame upon them. We are indebted to the Roman Catholic gentry of the United Kingdom, as much as to any portion of the population of this country, both for having built up its liberties and having given illustrious instances of loyalty to their Sovereign. Sir, this is not the only objection I entertain to this matter being brought forward. It concerns a speculative and not a practical grievance; it is likely to create alarm, likely to create prejudice, and likely to prevent the passing of measures which might have been of practical advantage to the Roman Catholics. I object, also, to this measure having been brought forward by an individual Member. I think, when measures of this kind are proposed, they should not be brought forward by individual Members; but if they are brought forward by an individual Member, I think it most unfortunate they should be, as in this particular case, by an individual Member professing the Roman Catholic faith. I think that imparts a considerable difficulty into our treatment of the subject, because you are not called upon by the right hon. Gentleman to decide between the existing oath and an uniform oath. That is a policy of a different character. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to decide between an oath that now exists and a re-constructed oath. What is the re-construction? It consists greatly of omissions—omissions which might, under other circumstances, raise questions of controversy, whether they meant anything or nothing; but when a Roman Catholic Member suggests the re-construction of an oath and makes many omissions, the natural inference in the minds of the great body of the people who are not so learned in political life and history as ourselves, is, that there must be some object in these omissions, and that if the object is favourable to the Roman Catholics it is unfavourable to them. Under these circumstances they are naturally alarmed, and there is often much prejudice as well as sound objection favoured by such a course. I think, under these circumstances, it is much to be regretted that such a measure should have been brought forward by an individual Member in such a shape. I therefore come to the conclusion that if the Roman Catholic oath is to be altered, it ought not to be succeeded by another Roman Catholic oath—that it would be better to leave it as it is, with the idea of a grievance—I do not wish to depreciate it, but, after all, it is not a practical grievance—than that we should come forward again and propose that there shall be a separate oath for Roman Catholics as distinguished from the Protestant Members of this House. Sir, my hon. Friend who has just addressed us has stated that, in his opinion, there ought to be no oath at all, and this shows you the great difficulty of the subject with which we have to deal. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) begs us to re-construct the Roman Catholic oath we are entering upon a subject replete with difficulties, which demands our most mature and earnest consideration. And one point is, whether we should not have a declaration instead of an oath? I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that oaths ought to be as rare as they are solemn, but I believe that there are occasions—and the taking of a seat in this House is one of those solemn occasions—when the sanction of the Most High may be ap- pealed to, not with irreverence, but with a due sense of the important duties which Members of Parliament are called upon to discharge. I think we should fall into a great error if we held out the idea in this age, when secular feeling is, I think, too much encouraged in the transactions of public life, that it is our business as much as possible to remove from the conduct of the highest public affairs the sanction of an oath. Another question has arisen in this discussion. The Secretary of State, who has addressed us, says that if there ought to be an oath it should be merely the oath of allegiance. But why, if this limited and utilitarian view of affairs is to be taken, should there be any oath at all? Some may doubt that the Throne would be less secure if there were no oath of allegiance. The Queen reigns in the affections of her subjects, and if we were all sitting here without taking the oath of allegiance I do not imagine we could diminish Her Majesty's authority. But the experience of mankind has taught us that the order and propriety of life are best consulted by the citizens of a State periodically declaring, on solemn occasions, their allegiance to the fundamental principles of their commonwealth and appealing to divine sanction—and I am not prepared to resist or oppose what I believe to be the consequence of the experience of mankind. But why should we take the oath of allegiance as proposed by the Secretary of State? The form of the oath of allegiance is mediæval. So long as these oaths were not disturbed, the oath of allegiance was one which we could take without any scruple, and in which we found the least difficulty. But if you are to frame new oaths—above all, if you are to prepare uniform oaths—the question may arise whether you should take the oath to an individual Sovereign or to the Constitution of the country. I do not see that we ought in a free country merely to take the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. I believe we are also bound to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution. It seems to me there is something rather barbarous in the idea that all difficulties may be solved in a free country by merely taking the oath of allegiance to a Sovereign who acknowledges her authority to be limited, and whose proudest boast is that she rules by constitutional authority. I know when you come to the question of allegiance to the Constitution under which we live a difficulty arises, because part of that Constitution is the Church, I think on that subject there are considerable errors: some misunderstandings which it is desirable to remove, and difficulties which, after due deliberation and discussion, might disappear. We have a good many Churchmen in this House. We have a great many Motions made and a great many discussions in which the interests of the Church and the constitutional privileges of the Church are called in question, and I have contended, along with others, against any diminution of the political status of the Established Church in our constitutional system. But not because I believe in the phrase that is often thrown at our heads that "the Church is in danger." On the contrary, I bold that it is possible that all the Motions that are brought forward by Gentlemen below the gangway might be carried—that the alliance between Church and State might be terminated altogether, and yet that the power and influence and authority of the Church might not be diminished. Nay, if the Church retained her property—and the tenure by which it is held is of so complicated a character that confiscation would be more difficult than many persons imagined—I believe the power of the Church might be increased. But if that alliance were terminated, I ask what would become of the power of the State? I believe that would be greatly diminished not only in degree but in quality. And, Sir, it is not the Church that is in danger, but the Slate that is in danger by Motions which would lead to the great changes which some hon. Gentlemen desire. I cannot help believing that it is perfectly possible, without curtailing the full Parliamentary power of criticism over the institutions of the country, that an oath might be framed which every Member of this House, whatever may be his religion, might freely take, and which no loyal, sensible, and truly religious man would hesitate to take. These are reasons, among others, which show the immense difficulties of the questions that must arise before we can come to any matured legislation on this subject, and all these reasons tend to prove that to deal with these questions satisfactorily, and as becomes statesmen, is the duty and province of the responsible advisers of the Crown. I know that the responsible advisers of the Crown have said that they will not undertake it. It was once undertaken, in a certain degree, and they failed in that case, not from any of the difficulties which I have suggested, but because they attempted, by the re-constructing of oaths, by a side-wind to carry a measure which ought to have been carried in a direct manner, and by the omission of words which I, for one, will never consent to omit from any oath framed in this House. Under these circumstances, if the Cabinet of the Queen will not undertake the duty, there is what I may call the Cabinet of the House of Commons, and that is a Select Committee. When I asked Her Majesty's Government to give a morning sitting, in order that the debate might be carried on, not hurriedly, and at a late hour, it was my intention to have moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with an instruction to that Committee to consider whether it was not practical to frame one uniform oath. But it was intimated to me by the highest authority that the question was in such a position that I could not consistently with our forms submit such a Motion to the House, therefore the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman has taken its course, and it is in Committee to-night. How are we to deal with it? I repeat my objection that I very much regret the attempt to frame another Roman Catholic oath. I think it would have been better for the Roman Catholics, I think it would have been better for the country generally, that the existing oath should be left untouched until the matter had been dealt with in a more comprehensive manner. But the House has by repeated majorities otherwise decided, and therefore I am obliged to consider how far I can meet the just claims of the Roman Catholics on this subject. The oath has been stated with great succinctness by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns). I will not admit that the language in the existing oath is a reproach. If it were so, I would not for a moment oppose its omission. I think this feeling on the part of Roman Catholics is rather of a morbid character. There are gentlemen, indeed, who have written to me that the bull Cœnœ Domini is still in existence, and I believe the Pope never repeals his bulls; and they fear some terrible calamity hanging over the country in the shape of the Roman canon law, from which I myself have certainly never experienced as yet any evil consequences. But we must look at all these points historically, and as men of the world. Granting that the bull Cœnœ Domini is still in existence—granting that it is part of the Roman canon law, and may be the law of a portion of the Roman Catholic diocese of Westminster, I cannot help remembering that during the greater part of this century, if not before, there have existed the most confidential and friendly relations between the Court of Rome and the Sovereigns of this country, who hold the Crown by a Protestant tenure. I cannot forget that there have been between these Powers respectively good offices and expressions of obligation on both sides. I cannot forget the expressions of gratitude, in the handwriting, not of the present, but of a recent Pope, towards the English Sovereign who contributed to the restoration of his power and his estates. When I know all these things, how can I be so much frightened as I might otherwise have been, and perhaps ought to be, by the bull Cœnœ Domini? I have no objection to certain alterations in the oath. If it displeases Roman Catholics to be accused indirectly of equivocation—which, by the way, every Protestant gentleman six years ago submitted to, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I am told, even to this day, takes an oath containing the same language—by all means let the words be omitted. But when I am asked to consent to omit the language which my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) proposes to re-insert, I find that a much graver matter. If you ask me whether I believe that the Established Church—and even the Established Church in Ireland—depends for its strength and its security upon any oath that can be taken in any place, I candidly confess that, were that so, I should have very little confidence in the future of the Established Church of this country. I do not think the Established Church in England depends upon that oath, nor do I think that the Established Church in Ireland depends upon it. The latter is sometimes spoken of as a weak Institution and in peril. Now I think it a strong Institution, and do not consider it in peril; and I have no doubt, from the causes which I have intimated, that the Established Church in both countries will continue to exist, will flourish, and will increase in authority and influence. But if you ask me what will be the consequence at this time—looking at the Motions that are made in this House, at the associations that are formed in Ireland, at the feeling prevalent throughout the country—if you ask me what will be the consequence of Parliament coming forward at this time and agreeing to the omission of language which was formerly introduced into these documents for the purpose, if not of defending the Church, of at least showing that the Parliament of England resolves to recognize its authority and maintain it, I say that I believe it would be most unhappy and disastrous, and especially to the Roman Catholics themselves. I believe such a course would be more calculated to revive the acrimonious religious discussions, which it has been our policy for a quarter of a century to put an end to—to lead to exacerbation of feeling on religious matters—and to give authority to the unfounded statements that are made with regard to the conduct of Roman Catholics generally throughout the country, than any other course that we could pursue. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation as to the course which I ought to pursue. I shall support my hon. and learned Friend in the introduction of the words which he has proposed; and I do so, not because I suppose the introduction of the words necessary to the maintenance of the Church—next to the Throne the strongest Institution in the country—but because I believe that if there be a general opinion that Parliament has renounced its allegiance to the Established Church in this country there will be such a sentiment of alarm, and perhaps of indignation, that the policy which I have always supported and still wish to support —namely, the meeting the just claims of my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen in a spirit of rational conciliation—will be greatly obstructed and endangered.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Sir, upon the second reading of this Bill I stated at some length the opinion of the Government, and, therefore, I shall only trouble the House now with very few observations. And, in doing so, I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) into those topics which he has introduced into the discussion, and which, I think, only tend to divert us from the plain and simple issue which we have before us. The right hon. Gentleman has raised questions about the expediency of maintaining the temporal power of the Pope, and as to the effects of disunion of Church and State—questions of great importance, but out of place, I think, on the present occasion. Neither will I go into the question raised by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). whether we should not be wise in abolishing all oaths and substitute for them declarations. That, again, is a question deserving consideration on a fitting occasion, but not raised by the Bill before us. The real question is—are our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects preferring a claim which can properly and reasonably be made by members of that church? They urge a claim to seats in this House on terms of perfect equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects; and the question we have to decide is, whether good cause has been shown for granting those claims. With the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman as to the different spirit in which questions of this kind are treated now from what they would have been some years ago, I entirely concur. In 1854 the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed to Parliament a Bill, the effect of which would have been to establish one uniform oath, precisely in the form now suggested by the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell), but that Bill was opposed, and successfully opposed, by the right hon. Gentleman and the great party of which he is the head. In the year 1859 a Bill, identical, I believe, to the letter, with that now proposed by my right hon. Friend, was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman at that time Attorney General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Fitzgerald; and parties were so evenly balanced that leave to introduce the Bill was only granted by a small majority. That Bill, again, was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the whole of his party. Now, Sir, what do we see? The Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend has had its principle affirmed in two divisions by majorities in each case of about seventy. And, more than this, we find that those who refused on the former occasions to sanction any alteration in the Roman Catholic oath, now freely admit that there are parts of that oath which it is desirable to expunge, and they limit their opposition merely to the omission of those parts of the oath which are embodied in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). I think we may certainly hail this result of the discussion as a proof that questions of this kind are entertained in a spirit of greater fairness and moderation, and with greater Christian charity than on former occasions. As to the apprehension expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech, that if the words relating to the settlement of property and the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland be omitted from the oath, a strong feeling may be excited in the country which will possibly prove injurious to Roman Catholics, let me remind him of the fact to which I adverted on the second reading of the Bill. No one can doubt the attachment to Protestantism of the Protestant Dissenters, or suspect them of any sympathy with the doctrines of the Church of Rome, yet they have petitioned that this Bill may pass, considering that the principle embodied in it is just and reasonable. And now we come to the point really at issue—namely, the retention of the words, maintaining the settlement of property, and the declaration that Roman Catholic Members will not attempt to subvert the Protestant Established Church. It is needless for me to repeat the argument that the oath does not contain any real defence of the Established Church. The right hon. Gentleman plainly conceded that, in his opinion, it does not constitute any such defence; though he seems to imply that in the minds of other persons it might be so considered, and that its abolition might excite feelings detrimental to the Roman Catholics themselves. I think they may well take their chance of any such feeling arising. Will anybody seriously contend that the retention of this oath is of any advantage to the Established Church or to the Protestant faith in this country? I stated before, that in my opinion the oath is unnecessary and ambiguous, and that was a reason why, at all events, it should be modified. No one has attempted to deny that a portion of the oath is ambiguous in its terms; that different interpretations may be put upon it, and therefore that it docs not operate in the manner in which persons who are anxious to retain the oath desire that it should do. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke of an alliance between the extreme sections of the Liberal party and Roman Catholic Members for the subversion of the Established Church in Ireland, had his attention directed to the fact that, not very long after the passing of the Act requiring the present oath, Lord Derby, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced the Church Temporalities Bill, which not only reduced the number of archbishops and bishops, but interfered materially with the temporalities of the Irish Church. I never heard that any reproach attached to the Roman Catholic Members for supporting Lord Derby in passing that Bill by large majo- rities. Other questions have since arisen; but the terms of the oath mainly go to this—that Roman Catholic Members shall not use their power for the subversion of the Established Church, and it is clear that the Church Temporalities Act could neither have been proposed by the Government nor understood by the House as a subversive measure. As regards the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), I say nothing. He is a member of the Church of England; but his Motion, undoubtedly, received the support of some Roman Catholic Members. As to questions upon which Roman Catholic Members are to vote or not, I say a man's own conscience can be the only guide in the interpretation of the oath. Some men will take different views of the obligations imposed upon them from those entertained by others; but we have no right to doubt that they will act conscientiously in obedience to an oath open, as I have already stated, to different constructions. If the oath is open to this ambiguous construction, that is a reason why it should not be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman desires to see one uniform oath established for all Members of Parliament. I hope this may soon be accomplished; but what he added about the difficulty of framing one uniform oath showed how inexpedient it would have been for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) to forego the advantages he has gained by the position in which his Bill now is, in order that another Bill might be introduced for establishing one uniform oath. If this Bill passes, the oaths taken by Protestant and by Roman Catholic Members will be so very similar that I cannot conceive it possible that we shall not soon come to an uniform oath. But insert the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman and you raise an insuperable barrier against the attainment of that object. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he would impose on Protestant Dissenters the same oath which he wishes Roman Catholic Members to take—that they will not attempt to subvert the Established Church? If not, the insertion of those words is a declaration that you will not have a uniform oath; that you propose to perpetuate the distinction—a distinction to which you attach no value, and which is no security to the Established Church. It is these useless distinctions we wish now to abolish. For these reasons I think it inexpedient to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns). I believe the best thing you can do, under present circumstances, is to pass the Bill as proposed by my right hon. Friend, reserving for future consideration the question of whether you will have an uniform oath. Towards the attainment of that object I believe this Bill is an important step, and I hope it will eventually insure that result.

MR. WHITESIDE

Sir, to the debate of 1854 the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), I think, has unintentionally made an erroneous reference. The Conservative party, as he has accurately stated, defeated the very bad Bill then proposed. But why? Because a number of Gentlemen who sat behind the Ministers, finding out the attempt that was made to overthrow the Act of Supremacy, which asserted the jurisdiction of the Crown in all matters and things ecclesiastical and temporal, although willing enough to pass a measure that avoided that subject, the moment they discovered the great and fundamental interference with our ancient laws contemplated by that Bill voted against the right hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party acted on that occasion in accordance with their principles, and not only maintained the Articles of the Church but upheld the interpretation which every great lawyer has always put upon the Constitutional law of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) the other night asked what he, no doubt, considered a very awkward question—whether I believed the oath which I had taken. He put that question triumphantly. He had just then returned from his rustic meditations, and I think my right hon. Friend must have been engaged either in the composition of a beautiful poem or in writing a piece of biography, since he failed to apprehend the principles of the Constitution of his country. The word to which his question pointed was "jurisdiction." If he had bestowed a moment's thought upon it he would have remembered that "jurisdiction" was the word employed in the Articles of the Church, where it is distinctly stated that "the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction within the realm of England," a declaration justified by the opinion of every lawyer who has written on the subject. I will give him a scrap from Sir Matthew Hale, because I should not like my right hon. Friend to suffer under the unhappy notion that the oath which he has taken was not founded on fact. Sir Matthew Hale says— The supremacy of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical is a most unquestionable right of the Crown of England, that there had been encroachments made by the Papacy under that loose pretence in ordine spiritualia, and these had gained great strength, notwithstanding the security which the Crown had by the oath of fealty and allegiance, and required to be unriveted by the power of Parliament. The Bill of 1854, to which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) referred, covertly and in a very sly manner proposed to get rid of the Oath of Supremacy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very clever speech on that occasion; endeavouring to set aside the principle of the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters. I believe many persons in this country of a peculiar cast of mind and of peculiar opinions would be very glad to do so. I shall now quote a few opinions of eminent authorities and distinguished men on this subject. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud would be satisfied with that of Lord Lyndhurst. Lord Lyndhurst said that the— Supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters was part of the common law, part of the Constitution of the country. Nor do I think he will disapprove that of a former Lord Chief Justice. It was as follows:— The declaration contained in the oath of Supremacy is but the affirmance of a proposition which is logically and politically true as an essential principle of independent Sovereignty. These were the words of Lord Ellen-borough.

MR. HORSMAN

Why not give Lord Chelmsford's opinion?

MR. WHITESIDE

I prefer to give what suits me. To speak seriously, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), on the occasion to which I have referred, surprised me. I did not believe that any gentleman in England, particularly anyone who, like my right hon. Friend, belongs, as I believe, to the Church of England, could imagine that an oath framed in the terms of the Oath of Supremacy could be taken by Members of Parliament not believing it to be true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) said, these oaths have an historic meaning and an historic character, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud expresses a doubt as to whether the oath taken by the Protestant Members of this House can be truly taken, he must allow me to remind him that it was not on the question of transub- stantiation that the oath was framed, but the great debate and the great dispute was as to the supremacy of the Pope of Rome or the Crown of England, and loyal Catholics in taking the oath took it honestly and conscientiously. Therefore, I believe the right hon. Gentleman will never again ask me the question whether I can take the oath believing it to be true. I venture to assert that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) had brought in a Bill directly doing away with the supremacy of the Crown he would have involved himself in a debate which would not have finished by the end of August, because this is a subject not to be got rid of in a cursory manner; it is one upon which whole essays have been written, and upon which the great sages of the law have instructed us. The oath to which this Bill refers is said to be offensive. Now, there are two or three Gentlemen, Friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have given opinions on this subject, and no person knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the opinions of Gentlemen who change their politics lose much of their value. Not only did the late Sir Robert Peel declare that he had drawn up the oath as a compact—[Mr. HORSMAN: No, no!] I say, yes. Sir Robert Peel, in 1849 said—and this supports the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)—that it might be taken by a man of the nicest sense of honour. Sir Robert Peel said— The law has provided an oath, to be taken by the Roman Catholic, which qualifies him to take his seat in either branch of the Legislature. That same oath, to which the Roman Catholic has no conscientious scruples and takes without the slightest difficulty, which was formed that he might take it without difficulty, gives him, with respect to civil offices, as well as to Parliament, a clear and unquestionable qualification."—[3 Hansard,cv. 431.] These are the words of Sir Robert Peel, and I therefore think the interruption of my right hon. Friend was unnecessary. And then there is the opinion of Lord John Russell. Now, Lord John Russell changed his opinion afterwards—of course he did; it is the fashion of the day. But Lord John Russell, replying to a proposal to change something in the Roman Catholic oath, on the question before the House, said— He did not think it would be wise to disturb a settlement which had been made after so many conflicts and so much consideration, and which, as he had understood, the Roman Catholics had supported as a full and complete admission of their claim to sit in Parliament."—[3 Hansard, cv. 439.] And, again— If they took the shorter form of that oath and substituted it for the Roman Catholic oath, as settled in 1829, they would he taking away"— What is the expression of Lord Russell? the foundation of that settlement, to which many Members would also object."—[3Hansard, Ibid p. 440.] But that is not all. Mr. Goulburn, in 1854, said— He was the only Member in the House who was a Member of the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet in 1829, and who was a party with the late Duke in framing the oath which now stood in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. When the measure was proposed by the noble Duke it was more ample and freer from restrictions than any which the friends of the Roman Catholics had previously proposed to the House; and all the restrictions previously sanctioned by Plunket and Grattan were studiously omitted from the Bill, the Duke of Wellington being willing, relying upon the good faith and honour of the Roman Catholics, to waive all objections felt to their entering the House so long as they swore to the form of oath then proposed. From that time to the present he had, in common with the late Sir Robert Peel and with all the Members of the Wellington Cabinet, distinctly refused to concur in any measure which should interfere with that great compact which was then entered into. He warned the House, and, above all, his fellow-countrymen of the Roman Catholic persuasion, to beware how they lent their efforts to the introduction of the first step towards the violation of the compact then entered into. Such a course would, he thought, tend to inflame the passions of the people, and possibly endanger the substantial provisions of that Bill of 1829, which had been found to be so beneficial to the country at large, and produce such an amount of religious discord throughout the country as it would be vain to attempt to repress."—[3 Hansard, cxxxiii. 970.] That was the argument of a Gentleman who had been a party to the framing of the oath, and what, then, does the House think of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, that the oath was forced upon a reluctant minority by an overpowering majority? Now, where is his authority for that statement? Let him produce it, and I will undertake to convince the Roman Catholic Gentlemen of this House that the Roman Catholics themselves were the persons who drew up the substantive part of the oath. How did they draw it up? My right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) alluded to the evidence of Archbishop Murray before the House of Lords in 1825. In answer to the question whether there was any intention on the part of Gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion to meddle with the property of the Established Church, he said, "Not at all;" and added that there was not the least objection on their part to make a declaration that they would not attempt to divert the property of the Established Church to the uses of their own church. Now, what did Archbishop Murray do, he kept his word? He returned to Ireland, and, together with the other bishops of his church, drew up a declaration which I will ask hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) to compare with that Amendment. In the declaration signed by the Roman Catholic bishops in 1826, they declare they will defend the settlement of property in this country as established by the laws now in being; that they abjure any intention to subvert the Church Establishment for the purpose of endowing their own Church; and that they will not use any privilege to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government. These were the words of the document which was signed by Archbishop Murray, and by every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland; and hence it was that Archbishop M'Hale, the only surviving one, had point blank refused to join that association in Dublin, by whatever name it called itself, which had for its object the subversion of the Church of Ireland, and to plunge the country into confusion. The Roman Catholic bishops "declare that they will defend (he settlement of property in this country as established by the laws then in being;" and these are the very words introduced by the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel into this oath. The next thing they said was that they abjured any intention to subvert the Established Church for the purpose of introducing any other in its stead; and they also declared that they would never make use of any privilege of which they might be possessed to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government of this country. Therefore the very words of their declaration were the words which were introduced into this oath by Sir Robert Peel. You find, therefore, Sir Robert Peel speaking of the agreement then come to as a compact; Mr. Goulburn calling it a compact, and Earl Russell speaking of it as a fundamental settlement. And these are the words which are now described as most offensive to every Roman Catholic Gentleman in this House. Now, I always prefer to be fortified by the opinions of the most eminent Roman Catholics. I do not study canon law much myself, because I do not like it. As to the words about the settlement of property, the late Sir Frankland Lewis put a question to the Professor of Canon Law at Maynooth, wishing to know whether there was any law by which the property of the Church in Ireland could be taken from her. The answer of the learned professor was that there was a law of limitation by which Church property, even in Rome, which had been out of the possession of the Church for 100 years, could not be claimed by the Church, and that there was no law, human or divine, which could justify an interference with Church property in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell, in his evidence before Parliament, entered into a learned dissertation upon the Act of Settlement, which deserves the attention of Roman Catholic Gentlemen, because it was drawn up in their favour. The head of their Church in Ireland, I observe, when censuring Mr. Justice Keogh the other day for his lecture on Milton, said something about Oliver Cromwell, who was a very distinct and terrible character. Now, observe, Oliver Cromwell destroyed your Church, and he and the Puritans, as far as they could, meant to extirpate your race. Your nobility were wanderers over the continent of Europe. They were stripped of their property, their fortunes, and their rank; and the Puritan was the first person who ever expelled the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland from their Parliament. Oliver Cromwell said they were not fit to sit in Parliament, and I should like to know who could contradict Oliver Cromwell? Who restored them? Those who believed in the Established Church. The Duke of Ormond, Charles II., and the Act of Settlement restored them. And now you, the Roman Catholic Members, are surrounding yourselves with the political descendants of the Puritans, who would destroy my Church and yours afterwards. I congratulate you on the union. In the Act of Settlement your Roman Catholic nobility and gentry, to the number of upwards of 100 are named, and by its instrumentality Churchmen restored them to their fortunes, estates, and titles without further inquiry, and they took the place to which they were entitled in the Parliament of their country. But the same law restored the property of the Church that had been torn from it in evil times. Now, I should like to know this. Do you hold it to be just and conscientious to form an association to upset a portion of an Act of Parliament which gave you your property? What objection is there to preserve in this oath the declaration which was recommended in substance by Mr. O'Connell himself, and which in the words I have read was sug- gested by Archbishop Murray and the Roman Catholic bishops. If I were asked, "Why do you rely so much on the other words, and what objection have you to take out these words relating to the Church?" I would answer by giving four conclusive reasons. The first reason is the publication of Earl Russell's new edition of his book on the British Constitution. In his preliminary essay he holds out the prospect of another appropriation clause. His triumph was so great on a former occasion that the noble Earl intimates to certain sections of the Liberal party, "if you join me in attacking the property of the Church in Ireland we may accomplish something for general purposes hereafter." The noble Earl's statements on the property of the Church in Ireland are a mere series of fictions. He says that the property of the Primate, if well laid out, would produce £180,000 a year, whereas I find his income is only £8,000, and for the first year the charges were £12,000. The income of the Bishop of Cork, so far from reaching the amount stated by the noble Earl, is under £2,000 a year. The noble Earl ought to have gone to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before he published a new edition of his book, and asked them for the facts. My next reason is the letter of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, with that frankness and simplicity characteristic of him, says, if I am asked to join your association in Dublin, I will do so on two grounds. One is to overthrow the property of the Church, and the other to overthrow the laws regulating the settlement of property, and among them the absurd law of primogeniture. My third reason is the programme of that association to which I have referred, setting forth their desire to overthrow the Church, in the way of which desire many speakers and writers in Ireland have truly stated this oath is a very unpleasant obstruction. In the last debate I thought I heard the hon. Member for Louth use the words that this oath ought to be removed in order to unlock the mouths of Irish gentlemen, and let them loose at that great nuisance—the Established Church. [Mr. KENNEDY: I said to unmuzzle the senators.] The hon. Member is correct, I said "unlock," which is not so poetical, and I accept the hon. Member's term, and I say that, being a Churchman, if I can keep you muzzled I will do so. You made an arrangement fairly, and you have kept it honourably. I could name a Gentleman in this House—the hon. Baronet who represents Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer)—whose scrupulous sense of honour, whenever the property of the Church of Ireland has been discussed, has prevented him from uttering one word in derogation of the solemn obligation which he has incurred by the oath. The last of my reasons is the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Irish Church. That was a speech that ought never to he forgotten. During the short time I was absent in Dublin a gentleman of opposite politics to myself said, "We have found our man; we have got our leader." I said, "And who is to be your leader?" He replied, with the greatest frankness, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer; he has promised to deal with the Church of Ireland." I say that was a mischievous speech, and combined with the other circumstances I have mentioned, and with the feeling of a portion of the public press in Ireland, I object to dispense with an oath that is sought to be got rid of, not only to "unmuzzle" those whom it muzzles, but to enable a combined attack to be made by the enemies of the Church upon an Institution which they undertook not to disturb. I have been startled during these discussions to hear the light way in which oaths have been spoken of. It is a dangerous doctrine when applied to an oath such as this, drawn up by eminent statesmen of the Conservative party. The Duke of Wellington recorded his opinion that, whether the security were great or small, it was entered into for the satisfaction of the Protestant mind of the country, and was one of the conditions on which the Emancipation Act was passed. The right hon. Richard Anthony Blake, the Chief Remembrancer, the friend of a distinguished Irishman, the Marquess of Wellesley, gave evidence before the House of Lords in favour of the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland, and being called upon to explain that evidence, he said— The Protestant Church is rooted in the Constitution. It is established by the fundamental laws of the realm. It is rendered, as far as solemn Acts of the Legislature can be rendered, fundamental and perpetual. It is so declared by the Act of Union, and I think it could not now be subverted without danger to the general securities we possess for liberty, property, and order. Believing, Sir, as I do, that the Established Church of Ireland is a security for order, peace, and prosperity, I will resist the removal of obstacles to those who tell me beforehand with perfect frankness that they mean to overthrow the Church. If I am asked what is the meaning of this oath, I ask in return whether any Member in this House will stand up and say that it was intended that those who took it should join together for the overthrow of the Church? The oath was framed in order that the settlement of property, so far as regards the Church, might be undisturbed. That settlement was overthrown in the short reign of James II.; it was afterwards restored; since then it has been from time to time disputed; and these words in the oath are of historic significance. Because they were fairly and properly introduced into the Emancipation Act; because they were suggested at the time by the Roman Catholic prelates themselves; because they do not hurt the conscience; because they do not offend the most scrupulous delicacy of sentiment or feeling in the mind of any Gentleman in this House; and lastly, because they assert a principle which is right, and just, and true, I heartily support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.

MR. HENLEY

Sir, I voted for the second reading of this Bill, but I had not an opportunity then of stating why I did so, and therefore I trust the House will allow me to state the course I intend to take at the present moment. The Home Secretary says he objects to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns), because he thinks the Roman Catholic Members ought to be here upon a footing of perfect equality with all other Members. He laid down that as the broad basis upon which he was founding his vote. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Hunt) said he would be no party to continuing a distinction in the oath, and therefore he would not vote for the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. But, supposing that this Motion be not carried, I ask whether we should stand upon a footing of perfect equality? No man can say that we should. In the first four lines of the oath, both Roman Catholics and Protestants swear affirmatively to four things; they swear to do allegiance, to disclose any traitorous designs, to support the Succession to the Throne, and to support the Dignity of the Crown. Now, when you come to discuss these matters as casuists it is difficult to say, looking to the common-law theories as to the Dignity of the Crown, which includes its Supremacy, how far the oath can be taken affirmatively by persons who, when they come to the negations, stop short of this. But then comes the difference. We Protestants declare that no foreign Prince, Prelate, or Potentate has any jurisdiction of any sort or description in these realms. The Roman Catholic, I believe, do not, and cannot conscientiously make this declaration. We use words which are larger than those he can employ, and which embrace every possible contingency. Do we, then, stand in the position of equality spoken of by the Home Secretary? I say we do not. Then what is the position? The Roman Catholics form, say, a fifth part of the subjects of these realms. They are affiliated to the great body of Christians out of the country. They possess an organization made more perfect within these last few years, and growing more perfect every day. Under these circumstances, when this country consents to let the Roman Catholics take an obligation short of what we take— because that is the real fact, it is of no use disguising it—it is an obligation less in amount than that under which we come—is it unreasonable, as they do not wish to stand on the same ground as we do, to say, "Give us an assurance that you do not want to use this power to damage the Protestant Church in this country?" I think this is not unreasonable; and I never understood that it was felt to be unreasonable at the time it was agreed upon. Whether it affords a great or a small security is to me of no consequence. If the words will be a great security to the Church we ought, looking at the increased attacks on the Established Church, to retain those words; if they are a small security I should still be unwilling to give them up. I cannot shut my eyes to the change in the position of this country from what it was when this agreement was come to. We cannot say that the Roman Catholic Church is less completely organized, less powerful, or less aggressive than it then was. Can we say that the attacks on the Established Church have! diminished? Before 1829 or 1830 these attacks were almost unknown. For a few years after that period they were very much pressed. In 1844, 1845, and 1846 they were pressed again, especially by the noble Earl now Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Earl Russell); and now these attacks are cropping up once more. Is this a time to give up that which may be a great or a small security for the maintenance of the Establishment? I, for one, am not willing to do so. I have a strong opinion, shared by the great majority of the country, as to the great blessings we derive from the maintenance of the Established Church, and I will not give up anything which I believe may be a security to the Church, The Home Secretary said the oath was an ambiguous one. If so, why do not those who think as he does propose a form of words which shall he an equivalent for these, and which shall not be ambiguous? But the fact is that they want to get rid of these words altogether. I voted for the second reading of the Bill for the following reason:—In 1858, I think, the forms of oath we take were generally re-cast. In recasting that oath the declaration as to the lawfulness of murdering ex-communicated Sovereigns was got rid of out of the oath we take, though it was retained in the Roman Catholic oath. I thought it might be felt unfair to insist that this declaration should be made by Roman Catholics, and I wished to get rid of that. I was also quite willing to get rid of the jurat, which I always thought might be deemed offensive. These considerations induced me to vote for the second reading of the Bill. But the part of the oath we are now considering is of substance; and I, therefore, readily support the introduction of these words, believing that they are of some use for the security of the Established Church, and being sure that great alarm will be felt throughout the country if we consent to give them up.

MR. HORSMAN

Sir, having had an opportunity of stating my opinions to the House at some length on a former occasion, it did not occur to me that I should take any part in this debate. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) has made so severe an attack upon me for my ignorance of history, he has convicted me of such gross errors of fact, and has covered me with so much confusion, that I feel constrained to vindicate myself. Part of that vindication will be an appeal to the House to join with me in requesting the right hon. Gentleman to set me that example which is more valuable than a whole volume of eloquent precept. Fortunately, we have an historical record of whatever statements we make in Parliament, and we are thus on either side brought to a test from which there is no escape. In passing I may say that when I spoke the other day of the jurisdiction of the Pope in this country, I stated that one of our difficulties was that there were so many different constructions put upon it by different authorities that it puzzled those who had to take the oath to know what it meant. The right hon. Gentleman has given me the authority of Lord Ellenborough and Lord Lyndhurst. Well, I could have given him many other authorities equally eminent and conclusive. I satisfied myself, however, by giving one which was peculiarly deserving of the respect of the right hon. Gentleman, because it was the opinion of a noble Lord who was Chancellor when the right hon. Gentleman was Attorney General for Ireland—I mean Lord Chelmsford. But the right hon. Gentleman said that he only quoted the authorities which suited his own convenience. The question is this:—The Act of Emancipation has been described as a compact between the Roman Catholics and the Government of that day. I deny that. I assert that there was no compact, that none was avowed, that none was implied, and I say that Sir Robert Peel went out of his way to repudiate any such compact. In order to make the history of this period clear to the right hon. Gentleman, allow me to recall to his recollection one fact. Hon. Members opposite take their stand on the Act of 1829. What was the principle and policy of that Act. By their speeches this evening, hon. Members opposite are repudiating the principle and thwarting the policy of the Act. I will prove what I say by quotations. In appealing to the venerated authority of Sir Robert Peel (you must recollect that we are not speaking of the Sir Robert Peel of 1850, whose memory we so much revere), but of the Sir Robert Peel of 1829, who was no friend to the principle of Catholic Emancipation, but who avowed he yielded to fear what he denied to justice. Only a few years before—in 1825—he tendered his resignation to Lord Liverpool because he was in a minority on the question of Catholic Emancipation in this House. In 1827 he refused to join the Cabinet of Mr. Canning; and why? You will remember Mr. Canning's memorable words when he said of the Catholic claims, "In the name of expediency they are politic; in the name of humanity they are charitable; in the name of God they are just;" and Sir Robert Peel asked how he could take office with Mr. Canning after he had given expression to such sentiments as those. Again, in 1828 Sir Robert Peel stated that further consideration had only confirmed him in opposition to the principle of Catholic Emancipation. In that year Sir Robert Peel was so little advanced in his opinions that he opposed the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, as proposed by Lord John Russell. In 1829, however, Sir Robert Peel was a convert to the expediency of granting Catholic Emancipation. He was a man of sagacious and generous temperament, and when he determined to yield he determined that the concession should be large, generous, and effective. Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the Catholic Emancipation Bill, anticipated the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and laid down principles from which he was determined that there should be no departure. The first principle which he laid down was that the Act should accomplish perfect equality between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Legislature. Sir Robert Peel said— If we are to relinquish the system of exclusion, let us secure the advantages of concession. If we are to settle the Catholic question, let us settle it at once and for ever. [Cheers from the Opposition Benches.] I have often known hon. Gentlemen cheer too soon, and I would now advise them to wait a little— Settle it, I mean," continued Sir Robert Peel, "so far as political rights are concerned, by the restoration of equality."—[2 Hansard, xx. 757.] Sir Robert Peel had to carry out this principle of equality, but the difficulty of Sir Robert Peel may be illustrated by the position of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) this evening. He had to mediate between conflicting passions—the passions of Roman Catholics on one side, who cried out "No exclusion," and the passions of those who cried out "No surrender!"—and he framed this oath. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire says that, as far as concerns the security of the Established Church, he does not care a rush for it; but there are those behind him who take a different view. Sir Robert Peel was obliged to make this compromise in order to conciliate the men opposed to the measure. That was the position of Sir Robert Peel in 1829, but he determined that a future age should be emancipated from the difficulty in which he was placed. He foresaw that people would say, "Here is a compact;" and here is the manner in which he repudiates such an assumption— It is the result of no compact with any party or with any individual. The Roman Catholics have not been consulted in respect to it; and for two sufficient reasons. First, because it is better suited to the dignity of legislation that it should be independent of previous compacts with the parties whom it is to affect; and, secondly, because it is not fair upon the Roman Catholics themselves to require them to give their previous assent to the conditions, or securities, or restrictions with which it may be necessary to accompany the measures of relief."—[2 Hansard, xx. 755.] Will the right hon. Gentleman say after that that this is a matter of compact with the Roman Catholics, when Sir Robert Peel declared that he studiously avoided anything like compact, in order not to interfere with the future action of the Roman Catholics? He foresaw that the measure he was framing must be imperfect, and therefore he laid down the principle on which a future generation might act, though he was too much enthralled to act upon them himself. Sir Robert Peel not only said that there was no compact, but he anticipated the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, because he said that part of the intention of the Government was that no restriction should be placed on the speeches or votes of Roman Catholic Members. Is that denied? If I understand the Amendment, it means that the Roman Catholic Members are under the obligation of an oath which restrains them from taking part either in debates or divisions on the question of the Irish Church. If that is not the meaning of the Amendment it has no meaning at all. Now, Sir Robert Peel, with great foresight, saw and cut that ground from under your feet. That very restriction was proposed to Sir Robert Peel, and what were the terms with which he rejected and repudiated it? This is part of history, in which I am ignorant, and the right hon. Gentleman is so extremely conversant. Sir Robert Peel said— 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 of the 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 appears 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 apparent connection with the Church might have a practical bearing upon its welfare ten times more important than another question which might appear directly to concern it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic from giving his individual vote, you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the power of speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a jealous and distrusting but ineffectual precaution, you tempt him to exercise to your prejudice the remaining power of which you cannot, or do not propose to deprive him, I believe there is more of real security in confidence than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccompanied by effectual guards. For these reasons I am unwilling to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either House of Parliament of any privilege of free discussion, and free exercise of judgment, which belongs to other Members of the Legislature."—[2 Hansard, xx. 758.] Now, I say that Sir Robert Peel anticipated and answered the arguments now being put forward. Is it nothing that a large section of the Members of this House should be placed in a position of inferiority by being compelled to enter it upon conditions from which others are exempt? Does not that imply inferiority? Every other Member, no matter what his creed, may vote upon every subject which comes before the House. The Roman Catholic alone is debarred from the exercise of that right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) said the other day that Henry VIII. complained that he was only half a King; may not the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard), who represents a Protestant constituency, say that he is only half a Member of Parliament? The real objection is that which has been stated by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). A Roman Catholic may put his own construction upon the oath, and a Protestant may put his own construction upon his conduct; and therefore an honourable, high-minded, and conscientious Roman Catholic, acting upon his conscience and taking his own view of the oath, may find the finger of scorn pointed at him from the other side of the House, and may next clay see columns of the newspapers teeming with reproaches against him for having violated an oath which, in his conscience, he does not believe that he has violated. But there is another case which has escaped the notice of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt). Apply it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). The right hon. Gentleman takes an oath in this House that he will do nothing to weaken the Established Church, but he takes another oath as a Privy Councillor that he will upon every question openly, conscientiously, and solemnly give such advice as he believes to be for the public good. The question of the Irish Church comes on; he has to advise upon that question, and he thinks, let us suppose, that that Church ought to be abolished. He has taken an oath in this House binding him not to interfere with the Established Church in Ireland, and he has taken another as a Privy Councillor which obliges him to advise its abolition. This is not the case merely of an unnecessary or doubtful oath, but of two absolutely conflicting oaths. I will not be tempted to go further into this question, but with reference to the reproach which has been levelled at my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) for bringing this Bill forward because he is a Roman Catholic, I must say that if the Government will not introduce a Bill, and if no Protestant Member will introduce a Bill, I think my right hon. Friend has only exercised a wise discretion in proposing a measure which will rescue himself from a great reproach, and confer a great boon upon all his co-religionists.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he wished to state that the late Sir Robert Peel, to his dying day, instead of in any way relaxing the opinion he expressed in 1849, had learnt by experience the value of the securities he had in that year recommended the House to retain, and which it was the object of this Bill to remove. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had read history in a very strange manner. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to persuade the House to accept certain expressions, which fell from the late Sir Robert Peel in 1829, in opposition to the tenour of the Act which Sir Robert Peel then carried, and to his deliberate opinion expressed in 1849. The right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe that the late Sir Robert Peel had gained nothing by experience in those twenty years. In 1854 the late Mr. Goulburn had assured him (Mr. Newdegate) that Sir Robert Peel, so far from undervaluing the securities which he willingly accepted and adopted in 1829, adhered to them as he did, being himself a Member of the Government which adopted these securities—not as a matter of compact if the right hon. Gentleman opposite objected to that word—but on the authority of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland. So far from departing from those securities, Sir Robert Peel, within one year of his death, and although favourable to the admission of Jews to that House, warned the House not to depart from the settlement of 1829, lest this country should be involved in those bitter controversies which it had been his object to calm and assuage. He (Mr. Newdegate) warned the Protestant Dissenters of this country of the mistake they were making on this question. Their predecessors had made a like mistake. But one year previous to the Revolution of 1688, in 1687, the Dissenters and Quakers had been so attracted by the declaration in favour of religious equality issued by James II., that they attended him bareheaded with expression of their gratitude, and yet the very next year they were compelled to concur in the deposition of the King, because they found that the power and tyranny of Rome had become almost supreme in this country, although there was not one Roman Catholic to a hundred Protestants at that time, yet Jesuitism insinuated itself into the affairs of State. This attempt at Supremacy, on the part of Rome, was defeated at the Revolution. Previous to the reign of Elizabeth no oath was taken by any Member equivalent to that now accepted by each Member at the table—no oath such as that established in 1829. Why should that oath be abrogated? The House was told that it was painful to Roman Catholics to have to repudiate the doctrines ascribed to them. But what was the language of the Encyclical letter of last December? That letter touched, not only on matters of religion, but of jurisdiction, for the Pope asserted it to be criminal for any Roman Catholic to hold that the temporal affairs of States and Nations were exempt from his authority.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 166: Majority 19.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported,without Amendment; to be read 3° on Thursday.

AYES.
Annesley, hon. Col. H.	Cobbold, J. C.
Archdall, Captain M.	Cole, hon. H.
Astell, J. H.	Cole, hon. J. L.
Aytoun, R. S.	Conolly, T.
Barrow, W. H.	Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Bateson, Sir T.	Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Beach, Sir M.	Dering, Sir E. C.
Beach, W. W. B.	Dick, F.
Bentinck, G. C.	Disraeli, rt. hon. B.
Benyon, R.	Du Cane, C.
Beresford, D. W. Pack-	Duncombe, hon. A.
Bernard, hon. Colonel	Du Pre, C. G.
Boyle, hon. G. F.	Edwards, Colonel
Bremridge, R.	Egerton, E. C.
Brooks, R.	Fane, Colonel J. W.
Bromley, W. D.	Farquhar, Sir M.
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Fellowes, E.
Bruen, H.	Fergusson, Sir J.
Butler, C. S.	Floyer, J.
Caird, J.	Forester, rt. hon. Gen.
Cargill, W. W.	Forster, Sir G.
Cave, S.	Fraser, Sir W. A.

Getty, S. G.	Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Goddard, A. L.	Murray, W.
Gore, J. R. O.	Naas, Lord
Gore, W. R. O.	Newdegate, C. N.
Greenall, G.	Noel, hon. G.J.
Greenwood, J.	North, Colonel
Grey de Wilton, Visct.	O'Neill, E.
Grogan, Sir E.	Packe, C. W.
Haliburton.T. C.	Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Papillon, P. O.
Hamilton, Viscount	Parker, Major W.
Hardy, G.	Patten, Colonel W.
Hardy, J.	Peel, rt. hon. General
Hartopp, E. B.	Pennant, hon. Colonel
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Phillips, G. L.
Heygate, Sir F. W.	Powell, F. S.
Hill, hon. R. C.	Pryse, E. L.
Holford, R. S.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Holmesdale, Viscount	Salt, T.
Hotham, Lord	Sclater-Booth, G.
Howes, E.	Selwyn, C. J.
Ingestre, Viscount	Shirley, E. P.
Jolliffe, rt. hn. Sir W.G. H.	Smith, A. (Herts)
Jolliffe, H. H.	Smith, S. G.
Kendall, N.	Somes, J.
Kennard, R. W.	Stanhope, J. B.
Ker, D. S.	Stronge, Sir J. M.
King, J. K.	Stuart, Lieut. Col. W.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Sturt, H. G.
Knatchbull, W. F.	Sturt, Lieut. Col. N.
Knightley, Sir R.	Surtees, H. E.
Knox, Colonel	Taylor, Colonel
Knox, hon. Major S.	Tollemache,.J.
Langton, W. G.	Torrens, R.
Langton.W. H. G.	Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Leeke, Sir H.	Treherne, M.
Lefroy, A.	Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-
Leighton, Sir B.	Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Leslie, C. P.	Turner, C.
Long, R. P.	Vance, J.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Verner, Sir W.
Lytton.rt. hn. Sir G. E.	Verner, E. W.
L. Bulwer	Walcott, Admiral
Macaulay, K.	Waldegrave- Leslie, hn G
Malins, R.	Walker, J. R.
Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.	Watlington, J. W. P.
Manners, Lord G. J.	Welby, W. E.
Miles, Sir W.	Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Miller, T. J.	Williams, F. M.
Miller, W.	Woodd, B. T.
Mills, A.	TELLERS.
Morgan, O.	Cairns, Sir H.
Morgan, hon. Major	Whitmore, H.

NOES.
Acton, Sir J. D.	Brand, hon. H.
Adam, W. P.	Bright, J.
Antrobus, E.	Browne, Lord J. T.
Ayrton, A. S.	Bruce, Lord E.
Bagwell, J.	Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.
Baring, H. B.	Burke, Sir T. G.
Baring, rt.hn. Sir F. T.	Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.
Baring, T. G.
Bass, M. T.	Cardwell, rt. hon. E.
Bazley, T.	Carnegie, hon. C.
Beale, S.	Cavendish, Lord G.
Beaumont, W. B.	Cheetham, J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Childers, H. C. E.
Berkeley.hn.Col.F.W.F.	Clay, J.
Blake, J. A.	Clifford, C. C.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Cogan, W. H. F.
Bouverie, hon. P. P.	Coke, hon. Colonel
Brady, Dr.	Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bramston, T. W.	Collier, Sir R. P.

Colthurst, Sir G. C.	Maguire J. F.
Corbally, M. E.	Majoribanks, D. C.
Cox, W.	Martin, J.
Crawford, R. W.	Mills, J. R.
Davey, R.	Mitchell, T. A.
Denman, hon. G.	Moor, H.
Dickson, Colonel	Moore, C.
Dillwyn, L. L.	North, F.
Douglas, Sir C.	O'Conor Don, The
Doulton, F.	O'Donoghue, The
Duff, M. E. G.	O'Farrall, rt. hn. R. M.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Ogilvy, Sir J.
Dunne, M.	O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.
Enfield, Viscount	Onslow, G.
Ennis, J.	O'Reilly, M. W.
Evans, T. W.	Packe, Colonel
Ewart, J. C.	Padmore, R.
Fenwick.E. M.	Paget, C.
Foljambe, F.J. S.	Paget, Lord C.
Forster, C.	Palmer, Sir R.
Forster, W. E.	Palmerston, Viscount
Foster, W. O.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Fortescue, hon. F. D.	Peel, rt. hon. F.
Fortescue, rt. hon. C.	Peel, J.
French, Colonel	Pilkington, J.
Gavin, Major	Pinney, Colonel
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Gilpin, C.	Portman. hn. W. H. B.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W.	Potter, E.
Glyn, G. C.	Potter, T. B.
Glyn, G. G.	Pritchard, J.
Goschen, G. J.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Gower, hon. F. L.	Redmond, J. E.
Greene, J.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Gregory, W, H.	Russell, F. W.
Greville, Colonel F.	Salomons, Mr. Ald.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Scholefleld, W.
Grosvenor, Earl	Scully, V.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Seymour, W. D.
Hadfield, G.	Seymour, A.
Hassard, M.	Shelley, Sir J. V.
Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.	Sheridan, H. B.
Henley, Lord	Smith, M. T.
Hennessy, J. P.	Stacpoole, W.
Hesketh, Sir T. G.	Stanley, hon. W. 0.
Hibbert, J. T.	Stansfeld, J.
Hodgkinson, G.	Stuart, Colonel C.
Horsman, rt. hon. E.	Taylor, P. A.
Howard, Lord E.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Hunt, G. W.	Tottenham, Lt.-Col.C.G
Jervoise.Sir J.C.	Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.
Kennedy, T.	Turner, J. A.
Kinglake, A.W.	Vandeleur, Colonel
Kingscote, Colonel	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Layard, A. H.	Vyner, R. A.
Lawson, W.	Waldron, L.
Leader, N. P.	Weguelin, T. M.
Lefevre, G. J. S.	Western, S.
Lennox, Lord H. G.	Westhead, J. P. Brown-
Lever, J. O.	Whitbread, S.
Lewis, H.	White, hon. L.
Locke, J.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Longfield, R.	Wrightson, W. B.
Lowe, rt. hon. R.	TELLERS.
MacEvoy, E.	Monsell, rt. hon. W.
Mackinnon, W. A.	Castlerosse, Viscount