MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 13 April 1866)

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
, who had presented numerous petitions against the Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill, said, that as pertinent to the subject-matter of the petitions which he had presented, and which he was sure would receive the serious consideration of their Lordships, he felt it his duty to allude to a Bill which had been brought into the House of Commons by two or three Roman Catholic Members for the purpose of doing away with the declaration against transubstantiation.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I must interrupt the noble Marquess, He is quite out of order in alluding to a Bill now before the House of Commons, and which has not come before this House.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
said, he could put himself in order, because one of Her Majesty's Ministers said that he accepted the Bill and stated that he would bring in a measure on the subject. EARL GRANVILLE: It does not matter whether the person alluded to by the noble Marquess is a Member of Her Majesty's Government or not. The noble Marquess is quite out of order.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
said, he supposed the Government, at all events, would not refuse to give some intimation of the nature of the Bill then promised, because there was a great and natural alarm abroad that the declaration established in 1688 was to be done away with. ["Order, order!"] He could put himself in Order in a moment by referring to the Bill (Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill) which was on their Lordships' table. He had not intended to allude to that Bill, because it would come on for consideration on Monday next; however, he would refer to its schedule. In the reign of Charles II the Bill of Rights was passed, and in it was laid down, as one of the bulwarks of the British Constitution, that from that, time forth the Sovereign of the country and others should make a declaration against transubstantiation. Now, if their Lordships looked into the schedule of the Bill which was upon the table they would perceive that it was proposed there- 1223 in to repeal the unrepealed portions of the Act of Charles II., to which he referred, of which the declaration against transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass was the most material part. That declaration had been taken by our most gracious Sovereign, and in what position would she be placed by this Parliamentary Oaths Bill? The Prince of Wales was bound to make that declaration when he was twelve years old, if he should then arrive at the throne, or, if not then, upon his arriving of age. Now, that declaration was in fact the charter upon which the Protestant succession in this country was based. Would the Lord Chancellor inform him if it was possible, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill of Eights and the Act of Settlement, for Parliament to repeal the unrepealed portions of the Act of Charles II.? Their attention had been called to certain proceedings in many Protestant churches, which showed that Popish practices were in full swing; and there was very great alarm in the public mind, and some concern to know what were the intentions of the Government upon this most important subject. The Oath of Allegiance, as contained in the Bill on their Lordships' table, would not bind those who took it to "defend" the Protestant succession, as the word "defend" was, as we perceive, purposely omitted; and by that omission the whole character of the oath was altered, and the British Constitution was changed. Vast numbers of petitions had been presented from persons who did not wish that the Protestant institutions of the country should be mixed up in any way with the affairs of the dynasty. The people of England felt strongly that things were being done which could not be tolerated longer; and he would warn the Roman Catholic laity to moderate the claims and qualify the spirit indicated by the presentation to the House of Commons, on one night before the Easter recess, of eighty-one identical petitions for the disendowment of the Protestant Church—petitions which evidently originated with the Roman Catholic clergy, whose bidding, as they knew, the laity must do. The facts he had referred to showed that the Catholic animus was against the Protestant succession to the Crown, and that was the reason he had given notice of the Motion which, in conclusion, he now moved. The noble Marquess then moved an Address to Her Majesty for— 1224 Copies of the Declaration against Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, as required by Law to be taken by certain Protestants holding Office under the Crown, and of any other Oaths bearing on Religion to be taken by Persons in any Civil Office.—(The Marquess of West-meath.)

§ EARL RUSSELL
said, he should decline to discuss the declaration against transubstantiation, and would say that it would be time enough on Monday to speak upon the Bill, the second reading of which was fixed for that night. He was not aware what officers were required to make the declarations referred to, but there would be no objection to produce copies of them.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
, understanding that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) had inquired what officers were required to make these declarations, said, he believed they were the two Lord Chancellors, the Chief Justices of the Queen's Bench in England and Ireland, the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.