§ The Earl of POWISpresented a petition from the Earl of Bradford, and the Viscount Clancarty, stating—
That by a conscientious Objection to taking the Oath called the Oath of Supremacy, as at present administered, they arc excluded from the exercise of the Privileges of sitting and voting in this House, to which by hereditary Right they are entitled, and praying that the Oaths as at present required to be administered to Members of Parliament may be considered with a View to the Relief of such Objection.The Clerk having read the petition,
The EARL of WICKLOWrequested their Lordships' serious attention to this petition, with a view to do an act of justice, in accordance with its prayer. Was it, he asked, decent or becoming in the present century to call upon Members either of their Lordships' House or of the other House of Parliament, or even of any municipal corporation, or upon any persons in this country, to take what was called the Oath of Abjuration? All oaths that were unnecessary were improper, if not criminal. It was criminal to force a person to take any oath that was not absolutely necessary. This oath was entirely unnecessary. By the first part of the oath it was declared that, as regards the ecclesiastical and spiritual concerns of the Church of England, the Pope has no spiritual authority, and no Roman Catholic ever denied that; but with regard to the second part of the oath, to which the Petitioners requested attention, was it true, as stated in it, that the Pope had no ecclesiastical or spiritual authority within this realm? When King George IV. visited Ireland, he received the Roman Catholic bishops appointed by the Pope; and Her Majesty, during Her recent visit to that country, carried the principle still further, for She not only 255 acknowledged the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops appointed by the authority of the Pope, but She gave them precedence after prelates of the same rank belonging to the Established Church. It might be questionable whether their authority was sanctioned by the Charitable Bequests Act; but in the Cemeteries Act, passed the Session before last, "his Grace Archbishop Murray of Dublin" was spefically named, and powers were given to him as archbishop, and to his successors. Could any one, therefore, say that by law the authority of the Pope was not sanctioned in this country? It was as much sanctioned as if a law had been passed declaring that the Pope had power to appoint bishops. He thought the Bill introduced by Lord John Russell in the other House had for its object the alteration of the law respecting the oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and was not solely introduced for the purpose of admitting Jews into Parliament. Therefore, it would appear that the prayer of the petitioners was sanctioned by Government, and by a majority of the other House, and was only objected to by their Lordships, because, in one of the clauses of the Bill, there were four or five lines introduced giving relief to the Jews. A Commission appointed to inquire into this subject had strongly recommended an alteration of the law as prayed for in this petition; and he found, from a statement in the Lives of the Lord Chancellors, by the Lord Chief Justice, that Lord Eldon had strongly urged the alteration of those oaths. He had himself brought in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commissioners, but had withdrawn it, in consequence of the expressed wish of some of his noble Friends. He hoped that their Lordships would take the question into consideration, for he was sure that no man who did consider it, and who looked at the Acts of Parliament to which he had referred, and at the recommendation of the Commissioners, could avoid coming to the conclusion that it was highly expedient some such measure should be adopted as he had indicated.
§ Petition to lie on the table.