COLONEL NOLANI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Canadian House of Commons praying for a modification of the Royal Declaration; and whether before he returns any answer other than an unqualified adhesion to the resolution, he will afford the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the Canadian demand.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI have seer, press telegrams reporting the passing of the resolution to which the lion. Member refers, but I have received no communication from the Dominion Government on the subject. The latter part of the question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.
COLONEL NOLANI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Tuam Board of Guardians condemnatory of the Oath taken by the Sovereign on the accession; and whether the request of this Board and similar public bodies in Ireland for the modification of the Royal Declaration will be acceded to.
§ The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper;—
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, K.)To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been 586 called to the resolution against the present form of the King's Accession Oath, passed by an overwhelming majority in the Dominion Parliament at Ottawa; and whether an opportunity will be given the House of Commons of debating and voting upon the same subject.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDTo ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Clare Grand Jury calling on Parliament to abolish the present King's Accession Oath as far as it deals with the Roman Catholic religion; whether, on receiving this resolution, the Irish Lord Chief Justice said he was glad it had been passed; and whether the Government will take any steps in the matter.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNORTo ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the resolution passed by the Parliament of Canada in deprecation of that part of the Coronation Oath which is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics of the Empire, he will introduce a Bill to excise from the Oath that part of it which is an insult to His Majesty's Catholic subjects.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThese questions relate to a matter on which I have already given several answers. I have really nothing to add to what I have already stated. My view, as I have already intimated to the House, is that the language in which the Oath referred to is couched is very unfortunate. I am not surprised that the form of the Oath as distinguished from the substance should have given pain to the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty; but what I want to point out to the House is, that the Oath will not have to be taken again during the present reign, and I do not think it is the habit of any Government to give pledges as to legislation beyond the session in which they are engaged.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not undertake to devote the small space of time necessary to amend the statute this session?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhat evidence has the hon. Gentleman to support his statement that the time would be small? If the proportion of time taken by his 587 friends in discussing the Supplementary Estimates is any indication, I do not think it would be small.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThe right hon. Gentleman has addressed a question to me, hut I presume it would he out of order to answer him and continue tin discussion.