SECOND READING.

HC Deb 08 March 1866 vol 181 cc1712-37

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he had to present to the House considerably more than 100 petitions from Churchmen and Dissenters—Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England. He had examined the whole of them, and believed them to be genuine. The petitioners objected to the removal of those portions of the present Roman Catholic oath which were proposed to be abrogated by the Oaths Bill now before the House.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I wish to offer a few observations to the House before it comes to a decision on the proposal to read this Bill a second time. I conclude that this Bill has been introduced in consequence of the opinion of the late Parliament, and the vote that was given in favour of the measure of the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). I thought at the time there were very strong objections to that Bill, the purport of which was to abolish and then re-construct what has been called the Roman Catholic oath—the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members of this House. I thought, Sir, and I believe it is very generally felt by Members on both sides of the House, that it would have been advantageous that such a question should have been settled by the Government of the day. There were many also who were of opinion that the time at which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was introduced was by no means felicitous; that it was, in fact, inopportune, and liable to a misinterpretation, which, however, I did not myself put upon it. But, irrespective of these objections, there was a very general opinion that the Motion was an impolitic one. There is no doubt that in the Roman Catholic oath there are some things that are obsolete, and some things that are invidious. If we were to construct an oath in this country de novo, I do not suppose that it would be constructed in the precise form in which the Roman Catholic oath taken at present stands. But, at the same time, although there is in the oath something that is obsolete and something that is invidious, no one has pretended for a moment that it constitutes anything like a practical grievance. On the contrary, the presence of numerous Roman Catholic Members in this House—and I am sure I am very glad to see them here, sitting on both sides of the House—I say that the presence of Roman Catholic Gentlemen of high honour sitting in this House shows that there is no practical grievance in the oath as it at present stands; and it is always unwise to disturb oaths of a political and Parliamentary character, unless there is a necessity, and even an urgent necessity, to do so. In an ancient and historic country, it is impossible that public documents, and oaths above all public documents, should not possess some reference to the past, and even some looking forward to the future. If we were a new community establishing itself in the backwoods we could construct an oath, no doubt, of what may be called abstract application. But you cannot act on mere theoretical principles in a complex society, and in an ancient country famous for its history like England; and, therefore, when there is no practical grievance, I myself am of opinion that the great inconvenience and misconception which the alteration of oaths of this character must produce render it a matter to be regretted that the question was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell). Besides those portions of the oath which are obsolete and invidious—namely, a declaration that the oath was taken by Members of Parliament without any mental reservation, which an honourable mind would resent, and a further declaration that they would bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, and give up all thought of the restoration to the Throne of the House of Stuart, which no longer exists, there is one portion of the oath which will hardly be placed under either of those heads, a portion allowed by Roman Catholics themselves to have a real and living meaning, because it refers to existing interests, that is the declaration that they will do nothing that shall injuriously affect the Established Church. For my own part, I have ever been of opinion that the Established Church of this country does not depend upon oaths. I think the Church of England in all its branches is too strong, too deeply rooted in the affections of the people and traditions of the country, to depend for its maintenance upon any form of words of that character. I have never raised the cry of "the Church in danger," which has sometimes been imputed to me by Gentlemen opposite without, I think, due reflection. I have often thought that if a severance took place between Church and State, the State would be in danger; but I never thought that the Church would be in danger, I think it is of great importance that the State should be religious. I think it may be doubted whether it is of advantage to the Church that the Church should be political. But I have ever been of opinion that by severing the union between the Church and the State, you would lower the sanctions of public conduct in this country, and would gradually but certainly reduce Government to be a mere affair of police. Therefore, in opposing the omission of that part of the oath which declares that a Member of that religion will do nothing to injure the Established Church, it was not from any fear for the Church, but because it appeared to me that the inevitable consequence of the proposal of the right hon. Member for Limerick would be this:—He came forward with a proposal to abolish the existing Roman Catholic oath, which contained matter that was obsolete and matter that was invidious—respecting the omission of which there were not two opinions in this House, both sides being perfectly ready to omit them, and he said, "Let us abolish the present Roman Catholic oath; let us omit that passage which declares that no Roman Catholic Member will do anything in this House which will at all affect the existence of the Established Church of the country, and which is a provision which leads to a certain perplexity of conscience on the part of Roman Catholic Members; and then let us construct a new Roman Catholic oath." I felt then, and I feel even more strongly now, that there could have been only one conclusion drawn by the great body of the people from such a course—namely, that the present Roman Catholic oath gave, as far as the Established Church is concerned, a certain security, which it was proposed to omit, and that they were then to construct another Roman Catholic oath without such a security. Therefore, I then expressed an opinion by no means unpopular, I believe, on both sides of the House, that the best solution of this vexed question would be the construction of a uniform oath, to be taken by all Members of this House. It must be obvious that the construction of a uniform oath is not a very easy task. In order to construct a uniform oath that would be satisfactory, and that would have any chance of meeting with general acceptance, you must, on the one hand, take care, so far as the Roman Catholics are concerned, that nothing is included which offends their consciences; and, on the other hand, you must take care, so far as the Protestants are concerned, that everything is inserted which they believe to be of essential importance. The Protestant is entitled to that which he thinks essential, and the Roman Catholic is to be protected from that which he deems offensive. Now, what is the solution which Her Majesty's Government has arrived at on the subject? Favourable as I am to the principle of an uniform oath, I confess that to me it is not satisfactory. I think that there are grave objections to the oath which is contained in the Bill. In the first place, this uniform oath as proposed by Her Majesty's Government is a mere oath of allegiance to the personal Sovereign on the Throne. The words are— I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and her will defend to the utmost of my power. Now, if an oath of allegiance is merely a bald declaration of that character, it becomes the House to consider whether any oath of allegiance is necessary at all. [Mr. WHITE: Hear, hear!] I should be proud of the approval of the hon. Member for Brighton conveyed in that cheer, did I not know that he cheers everybody and everything—opinions the most contrary, and sentiments the most opposed. He will, perhaps, take the opportunity of showing us the reasons why we should have no oath. But I am not of that opinion. I think it highly important that we should have an oath of allegiance, and I want to see an uniform oath of allegiance containing those materials and fundamental characteristics which I think an oath of allegiance ought to possess. Now, Sir, the first objection which I take to the oath of allegiance as proposed by Her Majesty's Government is that it is an oath of allegiance to the Queen alone, and not to her heirs and successors. I maintain, Sir, that an oath of allegiance in all countries should be dynastic. The great object of an oath of allegiance is to preserve from anarchy and to secure order—to take care that in any change of succession there should be no doubt—and, therefore, an oath of allegiance should essentially be dynastic. We ought to re- member that in this country the Sovereign is a constitutional Sovereign—that the succession is a constitutional succession—and, therefore, when we have an oath of allegiance it should be an oath to Her Majesty's heirs and successors as limited and described by that Constitution in which hon. Members of this House and all the subjects of the Queen, whatever may be their religion, completely agree. Therefore, Sir, I think it should be an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and to her heirs and successors, according as that succession is limited by the Act of Settlement. No Roman Catholic gentleman hesitates for a moment to acknowledge the Act of Settlement to be the law of the country. It is one of the most important and fundamental laws of the country, and I never heard a Roman Catholic hesitate in acknowledging that to be so. But can there be any doubt on the point? The right hon. Member for Limerick when he, last year, proposed the re-construction of the Roman Catholic oath—when he omitted all that was invidious, obsolete and unnecessary for the protection of the public interests—when he omitted that which many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House as well as on the other considered neither invidious, obsolete nor unimportant—and re-constructed a new Roman Catholic oath, he, as a Roman Catholic, inserted on the part of the Roman Catholic Members words declaratory of this full allegiance to the Act of Settlement, and to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, as limited by that Act. On this subject, therefore, there cannot be a doubt. I think great public inconvenience might arise from following the policy now recommended by the Government. Let us suppose—it is an improbable supposition—and, for the sake of his Royal Highness, I and the country should deeply deplore such an event; but when we are legislating upon a constitutional question of the highest interest it is our duty to foresee even the most remote and unlikely possibilities—let us suppose for a moment that the heir to the Crown thought fit to change his religion and become a Roman Catholic—in what a situation would it place a subject of Her Majesty who had taken the oath of allegiance in the form containing no reference to the constitution of the country proposed by the Government? He would have taken the oath of allegiance without any reference to the Sovereign being a constitutional Sovereign, and a combination of circumstances might arise in which his oath might place him in collision with the law. Suppose a Prince of Wales—I will not say the Prince of Wales—suddenly professed the Roman Catholic religion, and we had a Protestant Sovereign on the throne, what a scene of intrigue would be presented! what a new, complicated and dreadfully perverted character would it give to English politics. For a series of years a party would exist in the country, the object of which would be to change the Act of Settlement in order to prepare for the accession of the Roman Catholic heir. These are great evils and possible inconveniences against which our predecessors in Parliament have always provided. I cannot understand how Her Majesty's Government could be induced to take this course, because they must acknowledge that if there is any chance of constructing—as I hope and trust we may succeed in doing—an uniform oath, it can only be done by following the principle of including nothing in it that will be obnoxious to Roman Catholics, and including in it everything which Protestant Members think of absolute necessity. I must say that it does not appear to me unreasonable that any Member of this House should agree that in taking the oath of allegiance he should take it to the Queen and her successors as limited by the laws of England. There is another point of great importance with reference to this subject. I admit that it is at first sight not so important as the one I have mentioned. The House will remember, I wish to repeat, before passing to that other point, that the position which I have been endeavouring to enforce upon it is one which has been accepted and adopted by the Roman Catholics of this country—not thirty years ago, in order to obtain political privileges—not by Archbishop Murray, or Mr. O'Connell, or Mr. Shiel—but accepted at the present time, within the last few months, by the right hon. Member for Limerick in his new project of law, in his new form of Roman Catholic oath. Even he has adopted that principle which the Government has omitted, and which I think it imperative on the House to adopt. But the other point is at first sight one of greater difficulty, nor is it strange that in the struggles of centuries and the wonderful events which have occurred in an ancient country like England there should be difficulties in the solution of such questions. But I trust if the House is determined—as I deeply and fervently hope that it is—to bring to the subject a candid spirit, I trust we may succeed in coming to a satisfactory settlement. Sir, the other objection which I have to the oath framed by the Government is that it makes no reference to the supremacy of the Crown, I know that is a subject on which there exist very ambiguous opinions. Different persons associate different meanings with that word, but because some minds have been confused, and have no clear conception of what is at stake, that is no reason why on an occasion like the present we should not endeavour clearly to understand what is meant by the supremacy of the Crown. The original oath of supremacy was at no time, so far as its construction is concerned, a satisfactory oath. It was, unfortunately, of a rhetorical character, which of all epithets is one which ought not to be applied to an oath. It dealt with circumstances which were difficult to deal with, some of which do not now exist. Even after it was adopted by Parliament it never would have been a possible oath for Roman Catholics to take had it not been for the gracious interpretation put upon it by one of the most celebrated, and perhaps one of the wisest Sovereigns that ever existed. It was the interpretation placed upon it personally by Queen Elizabeth, in defiance of the opinions of her councillors, that for some time permitted eminent Roman Catholics to declare their allegiance to the Sovereign. The meaning of the words supremacy of the Crown in this country at present is that the majesty of the law of England should be recognized—that in all the courts established by law the Queen's law shall be supreme. That is a fact. There is no Roman Catholic who denies that in the courts of this country established by law the Queen's authority is supreme, and that no foreign Potentate, Power, or Prelate can for a moment question the majesty of the law. No one denies it. It is not an opinion. It is a fact. I will place before the House an illustration to show how completely that is the fact. We have now fortunately in this country a Roman Catholic Judge, a great ornament to the bench, who formerly sat in this House. I will take the instance of his trying a case of bigamy. Suppose for a moment Mr. Justice Shee to be trying a case where a Roman Catholic has married a second wife by aid of the registrar. Mr. Justice Shee, in foro conscientiœ, knows well that the man is not a bigamist, because, according to his Church, the second marriage is not a good marriage. But does any one suppose that Mr. Justice Shee would lay down that as the law to the jury? He would decide according to the law of England, and declare that a man who had married a second time before the registrar had committed bigamy. There is no perplexity of conscience, and a Roman Catholic Judge himself thus acknowledges the supremacy of the Queen in her courts, and in fulfilment of the duties of his office declares and administers the law according to the common and statute law of England, and not according to the canon law of the Church of Rome. It is impossible there can be any Roman Catholic who denies the Queen's supremacy in her own courts. I therefore think it is a very grave objection that Her Majesty's Government have not declared in this oath of allegiance that the person who takes it acknowledges the supremacy of the Queen. I know it may be said that it is difficult and dangerous to define the supremacy of the Sovereign; and that in declaring that Her Majesty is supreme in her courts you are dangerously limiting Her Majesty's supremacy, because no doubt Her Majesty is supreme in her Courts of Justice. But I hold that to be a misapprehension. I hold that you do not in the least limit the supremacy of the Queen because you acknowledge that in the Courts of Law she is supreme. It is a partial description of her supremacy, but it is not a limited one. It does not exclude a further description of it, and that I consider an answer to that argument. I, therefore, am of opinion that just as it would be quite possible in a uniform oath that the person who pledges his allegiance to the Sovereign should also pledge it to her heirs and successors, as limited by the Act of Settlement, so the person who takes a uniform oath may acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in the courts established by law, and that no foreign Prince or Prelate has any jurisdiction therein. This is a fact which all persons acknowledge. I think, therefore, that these are materials with which a uniform oath may be constructed; which would contain nothing offensive to the conscience of the Roman Catholics, and which would, on the contrary, contain, so far as the Protestant feeling of this country is concerned, the two material points which are considered necessary. But when I look at the oath as framed by the Government, I find the bald assertion of allegiance without any reference to a fundamental, political, and constitutional truth, the omission of which might lead to dangerous consequences. These are the views with which I have considered the question. So far as I am concerned—and I believe I do not speak for myself only, but for those with whom I am acting—I shall not oppose the second reading of the Bill, because I am anxious that a uniform oath should be constructed. I believe, if the House will view the question with candour, we may pass a Bill which will be acceptable to Parliament and become the law of the land. It is for the House to consider whether the views which I have put forth are sound, and whether they are open to no objections except such as prejudice sanctions. In the recognition of the Act of Settlement and of the supremacy of the Queen in her Courts of Law, there appears to me to be nothing which a loyal Roman Catholic may not cheerfully approve. I have reminded the House that the proposition of the right hon. Member for Limerick—the recognized organ of the Roman Catholic Members in the House—contained a recognition of the Act of Settlement and the oath of allegiance. The interpretation which I put on the Queen's supremacy is one which I think no Roman Catholic would refuse; because it is a fact, and because we know that Her Majesty's Judges professing the Roman Catholic religion are every day, by their conduct, and by their administration and interpretation of the law, affording conclusive proof that in the Courts of England they recognize only the law of England, and not the canon law of Rome. Under these circumstances, I cheerfully consent to the second reading of the Bill. I shall take care to place on the table an uniform oath, constructed to meet the two great points which I have endeavoured to impress on the attention of the House—allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, as limited by the Act of Settlement, and the recognition of the supremacy of the Queen in the courts established by law in this country.

MR. BRIGHT

I wish to say a word or two on this subject. The proposition is that there should be a uniform oath which, all the Members of the House can take. Now, there is a small number of Members on whom the Bill as it stands will impose the necessity of making a declaration which hitherto they have not been required to make. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department will look at the affirmation to which I and a few other hon. Gentlemen subscribe he will find that the words are different from those which he proposes. If the word "defend" in the Government proposition means that everybody who subscribes to it will be required to take up arms, then the Members of whom I speak will be called to make an affirmation from which some thirty years ago we were excused. I do not wish now to enter into the question, but I am sure the Government will see the propriety of placing us on the same footing in this respect as that on which we have stood since we entered this House. The necessary change might be made in Committee.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Sir, I have listened to the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with considerable satisfaction, because it shows the great advance which has taken place in public opinion since the debates which took place towards the close of the last Session. The right hon. Gentleman has said, in reference to the Bill, that it deals with no real grievance. On that point I must express my dissent. It is true there is no real grievance, if real grievance means the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament, because they come here taking the oath imposed on the Members of their faith. But what is now acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman to be the case with regard to that oath? That it does contain passages needlessly offensive and insulting to the Roman Catholics, and they are bound to repeat these words as a condition of their coming here. They are obliged to declare that they abjure doctrines which they repudiate as honestly as any other class of Her Majesty's subjects, and they are also obliged to assert that they take the oath without any equivocation or mental reservation. Now, I think that is a real grievance. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that in a discussion which took place on the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) an opinion was expressed on both sides of the House that it was desirable not only that subject should be dealt with by Government, but that the principle on which we should attempt to legislate should be the establishment of one uniform oath to be taken by all Members. I expressed my concurrence in that opinion, and that Bill came so near to a uniform oath that if it had received the sanction of Parliament the necessary consequence would have been the adoption of a uniform oath. This is the principle on which the Government has proceeded, and I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), speaking in the name of the party of which he is the distinguished and recognized leader, is ready to agree to a uniform oath, because if this principle be conceded, it disposes of a great deal of matter which was the subject of dispute last year. The right hon. Gentleman (if I understood him correctly, and I hope I did) is willing to consent to expunge altogether from the oath those parts which are needlessly offensive to Roman Catholic Members. He is prepared beyond that to expunge the declaration of their intention to do nothing which can weaken or subvert the Established Church—which if retained at all must be as necessary in the case of Protestant Nonconformists as of Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman is, I understand, willing to consent to the omission of those words, and I rejoice that that concession is now made from the opposite side of the House, remembering as I do that the eminent Member who represents Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) in Committee upon the Bill of the right hon. Member for Limerick last year expressly asked the House to retain those words, and argued at considerable length, stating the reasons that induced him to take that course. The House, by a majority, rejected his Amendment. I rejoice to find now that we are to have no further discussion with regard to the retention of those words, and that it is distinctly admitted that they form no security whatever to the Established Church. If they give no security to the Established Church they are unnecessary, and the principle of the Bill which we now submit to Parliament is the omission of all those words in the existing oaths, whether taken by Protestants or Roman Catholics which are unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman says, with regard to the oath of allegiance, that he thinks the Bill is imperfect, inasmuch as it does not require that Members of this House should swear allegiance to the Sovereign, her heirs, and successors. But the words we propose are the identical words of the existing oath of allegiance now taken by every Member of this House—those of personal allegiance to the Sovereign. Then the right hon. Gentleman refers to other words in the existing oath which require us to swear that we will maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of our power the succession to the Crown, which succession, by the Act of Settlement, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs to her body, being Protestants, part of which he purposes to retain. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the omission of the words relating to the descendants of the Stuarts, because they refer to a family which has long since been extinct. But with reference to the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to retain, does he believe that the Protestant succession to the Crown depends upon their retention? It depends upon the Act of Settlement, which secures to the Crown the Protestant succession. By virtue of that Act any Sovereign who ceases to be a Protestant and joins the Roman Catholic faith, by that very act would cease to be the Sovereign of this country. This is the real security upon which we have to rely. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a fact that ought not to be lost sight of—namely, that this part of the oath was not imposed contemporaneously with the Act of Settlement. The great men who passed that Act did not consider it imperfect or not sufficiently binding. The oath was not imposed until a later period, when, on the death of James II., his son assumed the title of King of England, and a real danger was apprehended. The oath was then framed to require every Member of Parliament to abjure allegiance to the preson who claimed the Throne and all the descend ants of that family. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that Roman Catholics have no more objection to take this oath than we have. They are quite ready, I have no doubt, to accept it, and to maintain the succession to the Throne as established by law. The true security to the Protestant succession rests on the Act of Settlement, and we thought it would be better in framing an uniform oath not to require the use of terms which we considered superfluous and unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman asks, in what position will you place the subjects of the Crown if they take an oath of allegiance omitting those words, and if any future Sovereign should become a Roman Catholic? But the ordinary oath of allegiance makes no reference to the Act of Settlement. The ordinary oath of allegiance taken by civil officers and by officers in the army and navy makes no reference to that Act. [An hon. MEMBER: Officers in the army take no oath.] Until recently they did. They may not do so now; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that that is a recent change. The form of the oath taken by civil officers is still more simple and short than that now proposed. There can be no doubt whatever that the oath is taken subject to the law of the land, and that the Sovereign to whom allegiance is sworn is the Sovereign who is entitled by law to claim the rights of the Sovereign and the allegiance of the subject. The only other part of the existing oath which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain is the declaration that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate has or ought to have any power or jurisdiction within this realm. [Mr. DISRAELI: I do not wish to retain the words, but the principle involved in them.] But the declaration that no foreign Potentate has spiritual authority within this realm must, of course, be omitted in the case of the Roman Catholics, for they cannot be expected to make that declaration, from which they are expressly exempted in the Roman Catholic oath; and would it not be absurd to call on Protestant Members to abjure the temporal authority of a foreign Potentate? At the same time, such a proceeding would imply the admission that spiritual authority is exercised. I recollect that last year it was urged that because the law of the Roman Catholic Church is different from the law of the land it was necessary to retain these words, but it is admitted that the Judges will disregard any Church, the pretension of which is contrary to the law of the land. I think the right hon. Gentleman has himself urged a strong reason against the retention of these words. He says it is a fact, and not an opinion, that the Queen's supremacy is upheld in every court by every Judge, and that justice is administered according to the law of the land and not according to canon law. I understand there is to be no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and I am very glad to find hon. Gentlemen opposite unanimous in agreeing to a uniform oath to be taken by all Members of this House. When the right hon. Gentleman lays his Amendments upon the table I can assure him that they will be dealt with by the Government in the fair and candid spirit in which he (Mr. Disraeli) hoped they would be considered. If the object we have in view shall be accomplished, we shall come here, without ranging ourselves according to differences of creed, as Members of the Legislature and loyal subjects of Her Majesty, dealing with all subjects coming before us in our legislative capacity, free and unfettered by any partial restrictions. With reference to the point alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), I have only to say that it will receive the attention of the Government; but I do not think that the word "defend" necessarily implies defending by arms. In the event of any danger arising to the Crown, I am sure it would have the benefit of those arguments with which the hon. Gentleman is so well able to defend any cause of which he is an advocate.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

Sir, I would not have followed the right hon. Gentleman had it not been for a certain degree of inaccuracy in his remarks as to what occurred last summer, and also as to the observations made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli). I will remind the House exactly of what took place last summer. The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) then brought forward a Bill to alter the form of the Roman Catholic oath, not proposing a uniform oath to be taken by all Members of that House. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) then rose in his place and said it would be extremely desirable to have a uniform oath for all Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks—with the concurrence of a large number of Members, if not of the majority—concurred in that opinion. He then said— You do not propose this; you propose an oath which is to be taken by one section of the House, composed of Members professing a particular religion; but I object in principle to tampering with the oath which has been resolved upon two solemn occasions to be most proper to be taken by Members belonging to that section. In that state of things I—with the concurrence of a large number of Members on this side—proposed to omit from the Roman Catholic oath all that was obsolete and invidious, and retain that which was not so. That proposition was negatived by the House. Any course now taken in assenting to the second reading of this Bill has no other signification than that of the desirability of having a uniform oath for all Members. This is entirely in harmony with the course taken by us last summer, and the right hon. Baronet might have spared his observation to the effect that a great advance has been exhibited since last Session. The right hon. Baronet proceeded to discuss the question as if we were now talking of what should be expunged from or retained in the existing form of oath. The question is not now one of expunging or retaining; it is a question as to having one form of oath to be taken by all the Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman made some comments on the two points alluded to by my right hon. Friend, and I would beg to say one word as to those comments. First, as to the terms of the oath of allegiance. My right hon. Friend says you do not propose that Members should swear allegiance to the Sovereign with reference to the Act of Succession established by the Constitution of the country, but you simply propose an oath of personal allegiance to the Sovereign for the time being. But the right hon. Baronet says the succession to the Throne does not depend on the oath, but on the Act of Settlement. Now, see what length the argument of the right hon. Baronet will carry him. I agree that the succession to the Throne does not depend on the oath, but on the Act of Settlement; but does allegiance depend on the oath? Is the oath taken the only obligation to render allegiance to the Sovereign? The obligation is high and dry far above, and independent of all oaths. Therefore the right hon. Baronet, to be consistent, ought to propose that there should no longer be any form of oath to be taken. The Act of Succession is of authority without any oath. I do think that if the occasion of a Member taking his seat is considered to be worthy, as I think it is, of a solemn recognition of allegiance to the dynasty of the country as established by law, it is also worthy of this, that you should take notice of what the dynasty is, and how it is established by the fundamental constitution of the country, and refer, as we are in the habit of doing, to the Act of Settlement by which it has been established. The right hon. Baronet is in error when he says that we have not been in the habit of taking notice of "the heirs and successors" of the Sovereign, for he will find in one of the clauses—it is of no matter in which—of the oath a provision obliging us to make known to Her Majesty, "her heirs and successors," all treasons and other attempts to injure her position as the Sovereign. We do, therefore, refer at present to the heirs and successors of the Crown, but in addition to that we promise "to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of our power the succession to the Crown, which succession stands limited to the heirs of the Princess Sophia," &c. If it is worth while having an oath of allegiance at all it is worth while having a true oath, and that is the allegiance we are bound to render. As to the other point—the question of the supremacy—it is not a question at this moment whether we shall omit or modify the words which refer to "any foreign Prince or Potentate." The observations of nay right hon. Friend had this effect only, that just as it is right and proper when a Member takes his seat he should recognize by his solemn expression of obligation his allegiance to the Crown, so it is right and proper that on the same occasion he should take notice of that supremacy which is the highest prerogative and highest ornament of the Crown. The words in which that should be done may be properly considered in Committee. That the Queen is supreme in all her courts in this country cannot be disputed; and I cannot understand how any Member of this House can refuse to take an oath recognizing that supremacy, supposing the words in which it is expressed are fit and proper terms. I therefore trust when the proper time comes we shall be able to devise words, and that the House will support the insertion of them, recognizing the supremacy of the Crown; but this is not the proper occasion for considering what those words should be. For my own part, I shall rejoice to see an uniform oath to be taken by every Member of this House, and the right hon. Baronet is in error when he says that our minds on that point have undergone any change.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said: I watched the contest, which lasted for eleven years, on the subject of the Parliamentary Oaths, with very great anxiety, and I hope that I may be permitted to make a few observations upon the debate, as hitherto continued. I have been anxious to hear the statement of Her Majesty's Government, for I think that with them rests the onus probandi that the present oaths, taken by Members of this House so recently as three or four weeks ago, are inapplicable and offensive. I did not observe, when hon. Members came to the table of this House to be sworn, that there was any disposition to shrink from the oaths administered to them—on the contrary, there was almost an unseemly eagerness to take the oaths. The oath, taken under the Relief Act by Roman Catholic Members of the House, had been proposed forty years prior to the year 1829 by the ecclesiastical authorities of their Church, and was at their instance enacted by Parliament in order to qualify Roman Catholics for the discharge of the duties of Members of that House. But before I proceed any further, I wish to call the attention of the House to the gist of the whole Bill. It is proposed to retain the Oath of the Sovereign distinctively Protestant. It is proposed to retain the Succession to the Throne distinctively Protestant. But it is proposed also, by the adoption of a uniform oath, to deprive Parliament of its distinctively Protestant character, because the vast majority—I think about seven-eighths—of the Members of the House are Protestants, and, as Protestants, take an oath conformable to their opinions and their views. A measure, therefore, was proposed, under the guise of a uniform oath, by which the vast majority of Parliament should be deprived of its distinctively Protestant and Christian character, whilst the Sovereign and her successors would still remain bound by oath to uphold the principles of the Reformation and of the Revolution. I think most hon. Members scarcely appreciate the gravity of this change. We live under a constitutional monarchy, in which the political power of the Crown has been almost entirely transferred to the representatives of the Crown in Parliament. The power of the Crown is not destroyed, it is only transferred; and it is proposed that Parliament shall cease by its oaths to declare itself Protestant by its vast majority. I hope the House will excuse me for bringing this point before them, but it is a subject better understood in the country than it appears to be by the majority of the Members of this House, and I need only refer to the number of petitions I have presented, to show that the intelligence of the country has, on this subject, outstripped the intelligence of the House. I wish to show that the prerogative of the Crown is not lost, but transferred to Parliament. In 1861, upon a very different subject, it was my duty to point out to the House that the prerogative of the Crown had been abused. It had been abused on that occasion—and I cite this only as an illustration—by the appointment of an unauthorized diplomatist to effect a treaty with France. I do not now inquire whether that treaty is beneficial or not to this country, but I do refer to this only as an illustration of the abuse of the prerogative of the Crown. In the very next Session a Bill touching the imposition of taxation was introduced by the Government, which was in effect an exercise of the pre- rogative of the Crown in political affairs, as transferred to the representatives of the Crown in this House, and in this one Bill alterations both in the Customs and in the Inland duties were proposed. I appealed to the House then against that abuse of the prerogative, which involved an infraction of the privileges of the House, and I am happy to say the House responded to that appeal, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to divide the Bill and to abandon the principle of "tacking," as it is called in Parliamentary language, which has recently been found so inconvenient in Australia. Having deprived the Sovereign of the exercise of that which was the prerogative of the Crown, Parliament is about, by an alteration of the oaths, to declare itself no longer distinctively Protestant, so that the prerogative of the Crown would be transferred to a body not distinctively Protestant, whilst Her Majesty, as the Sovereign of these realms, was still to remain bound under all the obligations which had been felt necessary since the Reformation, and which had become still more obligatory, as enacted after the Revolution. It seems to me that this view has not occurred to any of the speakers who have preceded me. The Bill before the House repeals or abrogates all the forms of oath, which bind both Protestant Members and Roman Catholic Members to uphold the succession and the supremacy. The question as to the succession has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member (Sir Hugh Cairns). As to the supremacy, what occurred in 1828? Mr. O'Connell then came to this House prepared to take the whole oath except the declaration as to the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction of the Crown. He could not reconcile that to his conscience as a Roman Catholic, and he retired. What did Parliament do? Did it sweep away from the general oaths all that affirms the supremacy of the Crown in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as in matters temporal? Nothing of the kind The statesmen of that day were satisfied that so long as the majority of this House were bound by their oaths to maintain the supremacy of the Crown in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, as well as in matters temporal and civil, the country, without any fear of a disturbance of the fundamental laws of the land, could afford the act of liberality which was then extended to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Now, I ask the House what new circum- stances have occurred? Whether there is anything in the position of the Papacy, whether there is anything in the position of the Roman Catholics, in respect to their liability to the spiritual influence of the Papacy, which should make us sweep away the safeguard of having a majority of this House bound not to disturb the supremacy of the law, that supremacy being essential to the freedom of this Protestant, and, therefore, wholly and really independent country. I wish now, Sir, to touch for a few moments on another point. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says, "What matters it about oaths with reference to the succession, when that is secured by the Act of Settlement?" Then I would ask, if that be so, what does it matter whether we take the oath of allegiance or not? The oath of allegiance is statutory; ever since the Revolution, indeed long before that time, the Crown has been held by law; the Act of Settlement itself is but an Act of Parliament, and stands on the same foundation as the Act of Parliament which establishes the monarchy; and if we are to tamper with the oath which binds us to conform to the Act of Settlement and the succession to the Throne, what reason is there for an oath of allegiance at all? There is none whatever; and I ask hon. Members to consider this. Hitherto there have been five points in the Constitution, which have been considered as covered by the fundamental laws of this country—laws regarded by the Constitution as something more than mere Acts of Parliament, constituting turnpike trusts or railway companies. The first point covered by the oath is allegiance to the Sovereign personally; the second point is the right of succession to the Throne under the Act of Settlement, which in the first four lines recites the Bill of Rights, thereby securing not only the succession to the Throne, but the rights and privileges of the subject—those rights and privileges which every man now enjoys, and which commenced in Roman Catholic times, as far back in our history as the early part of the reign of Henry II., and were more fully developed in Magna Charta. The third point of law covered by our oath is that of the supremacy, which rejects any foreign jurisdiction, whether Papal or any other in this country; the supremacy, therefore, is also asserted by a statute, covered by our oath. The other two points covered by the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members of the House are, that the Acts of Settlement of property shall not be disturbed, and that the Established Church shall not be overthrown. What is this Act of Settlement? There are, in fact, two Acts of Settlement of property. The first was passed in the reign of Philip and Mary, which declares the inalienable right of the then possessors to the property formerly held by the monastic orders of the Church of Rome. The other Act was passed in the reign of Charles II., and it declares inalienable the property in Ireland which had been confiscated, whether previously belonging to the monastic orders or to laymen. The Roman Catholic swears that these settlements of property, which have existed so long, he will not contest. The fifth point is the inviolability of the Church of England as by law established; and to that also the Roman Catholic pledges himself by the oath taken at the table of this House. Now, I wish to show the importance of maintaining these oaths. It is strange that it should be contested, because for more than 300 years, commencing with the first year of Elizabeth, the importance of these oaths has been admitted; and never from that period has any oath taken by Members of Parliament failed to include the supremacy of the law and of the Crown. I wish to put this point clearly. When hon. Members have sworn that they will not attempt certain objects—whether those objects may be the subversion of the monarchy, or to change the succession, or to abrogate the supremacy, or to disturb the settlement of property, which I have described, or to overthrow the Established Church—until these oaths be abrogated, no question can be put from the Chair of either House for the purpose of effecting those objects. Hitherto it has been contrary to order in this House for any hon. Member to move that the form of Government shall be changed, say from a monarchy to a republic. It is contrary to the order of Parliament for any Member to propose a change in the Succession. It is contrary to the order of Parliament for any Member to propose an infraction of the supremacy of the Crown. On the first three points this is especially the case, because such proposals would be contrary to the oaths of the majority of this House, and with respect to the two remaining points covered by the Roman Catholic path, it would be unbecoming and contrary to order if any Roman Catholic Member of Parliament were to propose the infraction of the settlement of property or the subversion of the Church Establishment. I think, then, I have shown how futile is the assertion of the Home Secretary when he says, "Never mind the oath as a guard to the succession—that is guarded by the Act of Settlement." Let this Bill pass, and Parliament is at liberty at any moment to deal with the Act of Settlement as with any other statute. The fact is, the abolition of these oaths changes the character of the laws which as yet guard these fundamental points, and would place it in the power of Parliament to treat them as no longer forming the basis of the Constitution. By the Bill of the Government it is proposed to leave one object guarded by our oaths, and that is allegiance to the Sovereign; mind, not allegiance to the Throne of this country as established by the Act of Settlement, but allegiance only to the person of the Sovereign. I hope the House will forgive my earnestness. I have heard these subjects debated repeatedly during the many years I have had a seat in this House, and they are, perhaps, more familiar to me than to most hon. Members, and I do not think anyone will be able to contest any of the points which I have now stated. I have given notice that I shall move the rejection of this Bill, and what do I find? The hon. Members on this side of the House have attended a meeting held, I am told, to-day under the auspices of a noble Earl, and they have agreed not to resist the second reading of this Bill; they appear to have abandoned nearly all the ground on which, as a matter of principle, they resisted a change in the Roman Catholic Oath last Session. ["No, no!"] I remember an expression used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire during the long contest which preceded the adoption of what is called free trade. He was speaking of the House of Lords, and he said, "The House of Lords is drilled into a guard-room. The House of Lords has no will of its own." I should be sorry to think that this is the case also with the great Conservative party. I object to the whole principle of this Bill. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] I know that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield does not object to it. Scarcely any extreme measure has been proposed for which he has not at one time or other voted; I may have the misfortune on this grave constitutional ques- tion to differ with the hon. and learned Gentleman. At all events, he has no right to interrupt the expression of my opinion. I do object to the proposal of any uniform oath. I object for the reasons I have stated, and for another reason. Hitherto every Member returned to this House declares the religion to which he belongs. Hitherto no body of electors could be deceived as to that, or, it they should be, it could not happen twice, for when their representative comes to the table of this House he must declare himself. If he be a Protestant he takes the Protestant oath, which concludes with the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Those words have been declared by the clear decision of the Courts of Law, continued by repeated decisions of this House, to form a substantial part of the oath. Therefore, neither the Courts nor any prior Parliament have ever underrated the importance of these words. The Roman Catholic, when he comes to the table, claims to take the Roman Catholic oath, and in doing so declares himself to be a Christian of the Roman Catholic persuasion; and if any Member not a Roman Catholic imposes upon the officers of the House by taking the Roman Catholic oath, he is liable to a fine of £500 every time he votes. I saw it attempted once; and I saw the Member who attempted it hasten to correct his conduct. When the Quaker comes and claims to make a declaration, he does so as a Christian; for before Quakers were admitted, Mr. Pease, as the representative of their body, before a Committee of this House, distinctly declared them to be Christians. Then came the admission of the Jews; and after a controversy of eleven years' duration a conference was held with the other House of Parliament, and what then was done? In order to preserve the recognition of the general but distinctively Christian character of this House it was resolved and enacted that Jewish Members should be admitted to take their seats by resolution. This may seem a small matter to some hon. Gentlemen. I admit that it is a matter of less importance to this House, because if any Member of the Jewish persuasion were to make himself offensive in this House, he would not be re-elected by the constituency which had returned him. But what will be the effect of repealing this provision on the House of Lords? If this Bill passes, the House of Lords will cease to have any voice in the admission of Jews as its Members, and if the Sovereign should create a Jewish Peer he will not only be admitted for life, but with the right of succession by inheritance, inherent in his family. Therefore the change contemplated by this Bill will be greater by far as it regards the House of Lords than as regards the House of Commons. I do not think it any small change that the Imperial Parliament of this Protestant country should cease to be characterized by the declaration that its vast majority are Christians and Protestants. These are the changes contemplated by this Bill, and they are deprecated by the petitions I presented this evening. There-tore, as I see that a great Constitutional change will be inaugurated by this Bill—us I believe that this measure is intended to facilitate still greater changes, and to render these changes, by making them step by step, insensibly less unpalatable to the country, because not fully under-stood—I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

MR. WHALLEY

said, that it was not his intention to take part in the discussion so far as it related to the oath of 1829, because he considered that was a question beyond the jurisdiction of the House. It was now a part of the Constitution as much as the Act of Settlement. The House had no legal power to pass the Bill now before them. Having regard to the circumstances under which it was passed, the modification of the Act of Settlement contained in the measure which it was sought to repeal by the present Bill became a part of the Constitution of the country. The question that there should be one uniform oath or not was a question the House ought to be qualified to discuss, although it seemed to him to re-open the question of oaths quite unnecessarily But, assuming that the House did pass the second reading of this Bill, he intended to move that it be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting under what circumstances the present oath for Roman Catholic Members had been enacted, and what new circumstances now required its repeal The oath of 1829 had been deliberately agreed to by the Roman Catholic Members, and he really could not see what cause of com- plaint they now had. It was said to be offensive to the sentiments of some Roman Catholics, but if that were to be admitted as a reason why it should be repealed there would be no reason why they should not repeal any other enactment which any Roman Catholics might think offensive to their feelings. If they were to alter the Parliamentary oath because it was offensive to the feelings of Roman Catholics, how much more would they be bound to carry out every provision of the Encyclical Letter out of deference to the feelings of the same portion of Her Majesty's subjects? The present time was particularly inopportune for such a change. He believed that we were in great danger from the influence of that Roman Catholic power whose feelings they were then asked to consult. He believed that Fenianism—[A cry of "Sing, sing !"]

MR. SPEAKER

said, that he heard an expression which was not Parliamentary; he begged it might not be repeated.

MR. WHALLEY

He thanked the Speaker for calling attention to that interruption of a Member who was endeavouring to do his duty. Let him remind them of the first occasion on which that un-Parliamentary expression was raised, and was continued in a manner which rendered it impossible for him to make himself heard. He begged leave to remind them that the first occasion on which that invocation was used was in the year 1862. He had then denounced the spirit of Fenianism which was taking root, as shown by the proceedings in Dublin, emanating from students of Maynooth, on the occasion of the marriage of the Prince of Wales. He said before the outbreak of the American War that Fenianism was fostered in America by Archbishop Hughes, and that it was instigated and sustained as a portion of their duty by the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. On every occasion of rebellion in 1848, in 1798, and in 1642—the Roman Catholic clergy secretly or openly favoured the rebels. At the present moment there was Fenianism in the army, as might naturally he expected from the character of the books placed in the hands of the soldiers. If he got a Select Committee he would undertake to prove that Fenianism was Romanism, and nothing else; that it had down to a recent period been instigated by the Roman Catholic clergy, that it penetrated to the army, and that none of our institutions were safe from it. If a Select Committee were appointed, it would be easy for him to prove, and he would undertake to prove, that the oath could not be any possible barrier to what a Roman Catholic regarded as his duty to his Church, because it was a permanent principle that no oath was binding on a Roman Catholic which interfered with his duty to the Church. They ought to hesitate before they unsettled the foundations of the Act of 1829, and, under those circumstances, he begged leave to give notice that if the Bill should pass the second reading he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. CHAMBERS

said, he agreed in everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) upon that subject. He also concurred in many of the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); and if that were a Bill merely for altering the Roman Catholic oath he should go into the lobby with his hon. Friend. But that was not the question then before them. The issue raised at present was whether it was desirable that one form of oath should be taken by all the Members of the House; and if such an oath could he framed a great advantage would, in his opinion, be gained by such a change. He did not approve of the form of oath proposed in the Bill; and he would recommend his hon. Friend to oppose the clauses of the measure in Committee, but not to divide the House on the occasion of the second reading.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a division.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 5: Majority 293.

NOES.
Beach, W. W. B.	Whalley, G. H.
Brooks, R	TELLERS.
Kendall, N.	Newdegate, C. N.
Lefroy, A.	Williams, Colonel

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he had given notice of a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but after what had just taken place, he need not trouble the House to divide again. He would only appeal to Her Majesty's Government, assuring them that since last Session he had come into possession of facts which proved that the disasters our troops sustained in New Zealand, and the disgrace which had befallen our arms in that colony were the direct result of the machinations of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that there was now no living representative of the Roman Catholic descendants of James II., but if a Committee were granted him he (Mr. Whalley) should be in a position to prove that Dr. Cullen, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, had recently produced a work in which he pointed out the true Sovereign on whom the dynasty of England now rested, and whom Roman Catholics, to be consistent, were absolutely bound to use all their efforts to place upon the Throne. He had now relieved himself of the responsibility which the knowledge of these circumstances placed upon him, and had thrown that responsibility entirely upon the Government.

Main Question put, and agreed to.