MOTION FOR A PAPER. (Hansard, 29 May 1868)

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, he rose to move "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Declaration against Trausubstantiation, &c, taken by the Sovereign of this Realm at his first Parliament, or at his Coronation, whichever shall first happen after his Accession." In doing so, he wished to make a brief explanation with reference to a Notice of Motion which he had placed upon the Paper, and which had been very much misrepresented both in that House and out-of-doors. That Notice of Motion had received a good deal of publicity in consequence of the kindness of some association, which was acting in the interests of Her Majesty's Government. It had moreover been misrepresented by the Press, and the 1099 public mind had been disturbed and confused upon the subject. A noble Lord (Lord Elcho), in the course of a debate a few nights ago, had animadverted upon that Motion without having given him (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) any intimation of his intention to do so. The noble Lord said that the clause—which he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had given Notice to move to introduce into the Promissory Oaths Bill—was an attempt, in the first place, to interfere with the Coronation Oath; in the second, to open the Throne to Roman Catholics; and, in the third place, that it was a Motion made in connivance with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), who was said to be endeavouring to upset and do away with the Protestantism of this country. As to this last notion it was too absurd for notice. The fact was that he had had no communication with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, the proposal being made on his own sole responsibility; and not a single Member, as he believed, having had any knowledge of it until it was placed on the table. The allegations that he proposed to tamper with the Coronation Oath and open the Throne to Roman Catholics; were equally unfounded. The Protestantism of the Sovereign was secured by express provisions in the Act of Settlement and in the Bill of Rights. The 9th section of the Bill of Rights declared that any person professing the Popish religion or marrying a Papist should be incapable of inheriting or possessing the Crown; the people in any such case being absolved from their allegiance and the Crown descending to the nearest Protestant heir. That Act was followed by the Act of Settlement, passed in the same reign, which repealed the provisions contained in the former Act, and further required that who ever came to the Throne should join in communion with the Church of England as by law established. He need only refer to the provisions of those Acts to show that the Notice which he had put upon the Paper had nothing to do directly or indirectly with the Protestantism or Protestant succession to the Crown; of these realms, as falsely represented in placards which had been extensively distributed. But it might be said, if this were so, what was the meaning of the Notice which he had given?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member gave Notice of a Motion relating to this Declaration. I think he cannot enter at 1100 the length which he is now doing upon a subject that stands for future consideration.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, he would not discuss the matter at any length, but in moving for the copy of the Declaration he did not think he was out of Order in alluding to the Motion for which he wanted it. The object of his Motion was simply to get rid of the particular Declaration, a copy of which he now moved for, and which was established in this kingdom in the reign of Charles II., at a time when Protestant feeling was strongly aroused in consequence of the excitement connected with the Popish plot. The Declaration which was required to be taken by all persons holding office was framed expressly for the purpose of excluding persons who, though nominally Protestants, were not relied upon as such; and hence the Declaration was one of a most offensive character. He would not read the whole of it, but would merely give the substance. [The hon. and learned Baronet read passages from the Declaration denouncing the belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and the sacrifice of the Mass.] The Declaration was framed in the most offensive and insulting manner to Catholics. It was a relic of that temple of intolerance which had been reared by our ancestors long ago. From the time he first entered the House he had endeavoured to erase that offensive Declaration from the statute book, and on his introducing a Bill for that purpose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), with the feelings of a Gentleman and a Christian, stated, on behalf of the Conservative party, that he should offer no objection to the removal of this Declaration. The Bill passed through the House of Commons, but, as they were all aware, it was not the custom in "another place" to pass a Bill of the kind the first time it was sent up to them; and accordingly the application was repeated in 1867, when he was happy to say that it became the law of the land, and now every person under the Crown was relieved from the necessity of taking that Declaration. It was formerly required to be taken by the clergy in Ireland; but a Royal Commission appointed in 1865, unanimously declared that it ought to be abolished even as to the clergy. The Report of the Oaths Commission described the Declaration as "painful and irritating in its nature," and 1101 also as "needless and mischievous." At the time he first introduced the Bill he carried last Session, he did not know that the Sovereign was required to take the Declaration; but afterwards it came to his knowledge that such was the case. It was too late then to put any provision into the Bill; but this year, especially after the Report of the Commissioners had been published, he had felt that advantage ought to be taken of the Promissory Oaths Bill being before the House to relieve the Sovereign from the necessity of making a Declaration which was no longer required from any of her subjects. It was with that object he had put upon the Paper a Notice for abolishing the Declaration. It was quite possible to frame a Declaration that would be effectual for the purpose without containing in it words that were almost indecent in their condemnation of doctrines believed in by nearly one-half of Europe, and by many millions of Her Majesty's subjects. He certainly had ventured to hope that a Parliament which—though it was called a moribund Parliament—had done so much for the cause of religious liberty, and in adopting the Resolutions relating to the Irish Church had shown its zeal for religious equality, would be anxious, before it passed away, to complete the noble work it had undertaken. He felt it right to make this short explanation for the purpose of explaining that the Motion was entirely his own, that it had nothing whatever to do with the Protestantism of the Crown, or the alteration of the Coronation Oath, and that its object was simply to get rid of a foolish and offensive Declaration, as the Motion was much misrepresented out-of-doors, and the misrepresentation, if un-contradicted, was calculated to do much harm by aiding the Protestant cry which Her Majesty's Ministers had attempted to raise in view of a General Election.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the hon. and learned Baronet had been very anxious to disclaim any intention of interfering with the Act of Settlement; but the mutt admit 1102 that the Declaration to which he so strongly objected was required to be taken not only by the Act of Settlement, but by the Bill of Rights. Hence it was not surprising that the people of this country should think the hon. and learned Baronet intended to repeal u part of the Act of Settlement, inasmuch as he proposed to strike out of that Act the provisions requiring this Declaration to be taken by the Sovereign. It was he who had called the attention of the hon. and learned Baronet to the fact that if his Bill of last year became law the Sovereign would remain the only person compelled to make this Declaration. Its terms were complained of as offensive; but its offence lay in the fact that it distinctly and plainly repudiated those cardinal doctrines of the Church of Rome, which mainly constituted the difference between that Church and the Church of England. It was unnecessary to repeat the origin of this Declaration; but there was a time in the history of this country when the religion of the aspirants to the Throne was doubtful. It was thought that the Duke of York, afterwards James II., was a Roman Catholic, and it was determined that in some explicit manner the Sovereign should make a Declaration on this leading doctrine of the Church, and should assert his identification of belief with the Reformed Church of this country. He admitted that the language of the Declaration was plain-spoken, and he consulted the present Lord Chancellor, then Sir Hugh Cairns, and Mr. Whiteside on the subject. Their opinion was that by substituting a declaration of adherence and acceptance of the 27th and 28th Articles of Religion of the Church of England all the offensive terms of the Declaration against Transubstantiation might be eliminated, and yet that the substance of the Oath might be retained. This proposal he submitted to the House in Committee on the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), Was he satisfied with this honest attempt to eliminate the offensive terms? No, he aimed at the substance of the Declaration, and induced the Committee, by a small majority, to reject the Amendment. After that opinion, given by two of the most eminent lawyers in the kingdom, and confirmed by other lawyers, and the attempt he had made to carry it into effect, he could put no faith in the hon. Member's statement that he only desired to rid one portion of the Act of Settlement of the offensive terms contained in it. He believed. 1103 that when the people out-of-doors saw an attempt made to tamper with the Act of Settlement, which, if there were any such, was the fundamental statute on which rested the rights of the Throne and the liberty of the subject—when they saw that this was done upon the plea that it was only an attempt to get rid of offensive words after an honest attempt had been made to sweep them away and retain the substance, it was not surprising if the proceedings of the hon. and learned Gentleman were regarded with great suspicion. They had heard from the hon. Member for Manchester something about the desirability of putting some limits to the right of free discussion. And at what period was this bold suggestion made? Just when repeated attacks were being made upon the Protestant Establishments of this country, and when an energetic Roman Catholic Member was attempting to tamper with a portion of the Act of Settlement. The experience of 200 years had shown that the terms and substance of this Declaration were necessary, and that it was requisite that the Sovereign should with his own lips declare his sincere attachment to the Protestant religion.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
rose to reply, but—

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he had not thought it right to stop the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in replying to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Clare; but the hon. and learned Member had gone too far in the observations he had made, and the House ought not to be led now into further discussion.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, it was not his intention to proceed with his Motion.