HL Deb 22 February 1901 vol 89 cc816-21
LORD BRAYE,

who had the following question on the Paper—

"To ask the Prime Minister whether he can hold out hope that the Government will speedily introduce into Parliament a measure to wholly abolish the Oath imposed as obligatory on the Sovereign of this country by Statute which was solemnly taken by His Majesty the present King in this Parliament; that is to say, the Oath in which Almighty God is invoked to bear witness that doctrines held by the Catholic Church not only as awful, sacred, and stupendous, but also as vital and fundamental, are false"

said: My Lords, with the leave of the noble Marquess, I wish to postpone this question until such time as the Government have had further opportunity for taking the matter to which it refers into consideration. The matter is no doubt under consideration, owing to a memorial or protest signed by a number of Roman Catholic Peers against the Oath which has been taken in this House by the Sovereign, and I therefore ask leave to postpone the question until the matter has received further consideration by the Government.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

My Lords, I do not know whether there is any object to be gained in delaying the question which the noble Lord wished to ask, excepting bringing him down again unnecessarily. Though I am very anxious to give an answer which would be satisfactory to the noble Lord and his co-religionists, I do not wish to leave on his mind an impression that there are any doubts in the matter. We all of us deplore the language in which that Declaration is couched, and very much wish it could be otherwise expressed; but when it comes to altering an enactment which has now lasted, as far as I know, without serious question, 200 years, i and which was originally included in the Bill of Rights, it is a matter which cannot be done without very considerable thought. We must remember that an enactment of that kind represents the passions, feelings, and sensibilities of the people by whom it was originally caused; and that these have not died out. They are not strong within these walls; but there are undoubtedly parts of the country where the controversies which the Declaration represents still flourish, and where the emotions which it indicates have not died out. Before an; enactment is proposed, with all the discussion which must precede such an enactment, we shall have to consider how far it is desirable to light again passions which sleep at this moment, for an occasion which is not now urgent, and which we all earnestly hope may not be urgent in our lives. I do not wish to debar the noble Lord from any action which he may think it right to take; but I wish to point out to him the extreme difficulties and anxieties which would accompany any such attempt. With respect to the actual question of legislation, I need hardly observe that it is rather a question for the House of Commons than for us, because here I do not imagine there would be any doubt whatever about the result of such attempted legislation. But I could not be certain that a very strong feeling might not be excited elsewhere; and I notice that, possibly with a view to that consideration, the Leader of the other House, in answer to a question, said that, at all events for the present year, he did not see the possibility of having the requisite opportunity of bringing the question before the House.* I am afraid, therefore, however deeply I sympathise with the feelings of the noble Lord and wish there had been no cause for their being appealed to, that my answer would have to be of a discouraging character.

EARL SPEXCER

My Lords, I certainly should have preferred that the *See page 320. noble Marquess had acceded to the request of my noble friend who had this question on the Paper, and allowed it to be adjourned. The noble Marquess has said certain things with which no doubt I should heartily agree. At the same time I do feel that it is important that, if possible, the words of this Oath should be modified, so as not to give offence, which it does give, and rightly gives, to the consciences of many of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. The noble Marquess said, and I most heartily agree with him, that he trusts we shall not have the necessity of hearing the Oath taken again in Parliament for a very long time. But if there is anything in the contention of those who say that it is desirable that the form of the Oath should be altered, then I hold it is not right to defer its alteration by statute much beyond the present time. The noble Marquess said it is difficult to alter it on account of its great age, and the great length of time the Oath has been on the Statute-book. But a great many things have to be altered, owing to change of circumstances and change of opinion, without having regard to their origin. I for one do not at all agree with what I understand from the question of my noble friend is his contention—namely, that the Oath should be altogether dispensed with. I think it is essential, considering the very strong feeling on the subject in the country, that there should be some oath or some declaration which would prevent the Throne from being occupied by one of the Roman Catholic faith. While I feel that, I also most strongly feel that the Oath in its present form is unnecessarily offensive to Roman Catholics; and although I am a strong Protestant myself, I do not at all believe in the necessity of the continuation of the offensive words in the Oath. I venture to press upon the noble Marquess the urgent necessity that within a reasonable time the Government, with their large majority and all their power, should look into the matter and endeavour to alter the form of the Oath. It is hardly necessary for me to point to the great change which has taken place within the last century on matters of conscience. I would only refer to one matter. A much greater step than the alteration of the words of this Oath was the passing of an Act in 1867 or 1868 which enabled a Roman Catholic to be Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I was the first and I believe the only Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who had as a colleague a Roman Catholic Lord Chancellor.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)

There has been one since.

EARL SPENCER

The noble and learned Lord is quite right. I very well recollect the feelings that were excited, and I myself was the object of attack on that account. But I venture to say there was not a single act of the Irish Government, of which I was at that time the head, and of which the noble Duke sitting by the side of the Prime Minister was a distinguished Member, which affected injuriously the interests of the country on account of a Roman Catholic being Lord Chancellor of Ireland. That was a greater change than any mere modification of the King's Oath; and while, as I have said, I consider that some form of oath must exist, I hope the Government will refer the question to a Committee, or, as I should prefer, will take action themselves to make the Oath less offensive to Roman Catholics.

LORD HERRIES

My Lords, I am quite sure the Roman Catholics in England will be most grateful to the noble Earl for the manner in which he has spoken to-night. I did not come down to this House prepared to speak, but I had already made up my mind to move, in the course of this Session, that a Committee be appointed consisting, I hope, of Members of both parties, including, perhaps, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to consider what modification it might be possible to introduce into the Declaration which would make it more agreeable to a large portion of His Majesty's subjects. I do not think myself that there can be any objection to that course. I wish your Lordships to remember that the Declaration which was taken by His Majesty at the opening of Parliament is offensive not only to the feelings of His Majesty's own subjects, but also to the feelings of many of his nearest relations. Thus, for example, the Russian Imperial family may equally consider themselves branded as idolatrous and superstitious persons. Indeed, most of the Royal families in Europe are by it branded as idolatrous and superstitious persons. The extraordinary thing is that if any of these Royal personages were to die, and there was a Requiem Mass said in this country, the King would be expected to send his own representative to attend what he has branded as an idolatrous and superstitious ceremony. Surely there is something anomalous in that; and surely it is possible for the British Legislature in this century to make some alteration in the Declaration. We do not ask you to do away with the Declaration altogether. What we ask is that such modification should be introduced into the Oath as to leave out these offensive words. Such an alteration would not in the least endanger the religion of the majority in this country. It must astonish a large number of Colonists and also a great number of people throughout Europe that such a Declaration should exist at this time of day in this home of religious toleration. I have only to add that before the end of the session I shall bring this matter forward unless I can get some other Peer who is likely to have more influence than I have to do so; and I hope the Government, who now know that they will also have the support of the Opposition, will be prepared to assist in the formation of a Committee which will receive the general approval of all classes, and which will, I have no doubt, devise some modification of the Oath which will be satisfactory to the feelings of the Roman Catholics of this country.

LORD BRAYE

My Lords, as the noble Marquess the Prime Minister has thought fit —wisely, perhaps—not to allow me to postpone my question, and as a brief discussion has been initiated, I may, perhaps, venture to ask what is now called, I believe, a supplementary question, of which we have heard so much lately in another place. Why should not this Oath be converted into a Declaration? The noble Earl who spoke after the noble Marquess rather took exception to my wish, as stated in the question, that the Oath should be wholly abolished. I do not suggest the possibility or the likelihood of the Declaration being abolished. What I take exception to is the Oath being imposed by statute. An oath is a very different thing indeed from a Declaration. A Declaration is a thing within the province of politics, whereas an Oath essentially comes within the sphere of religion. This Oath, imposed by a statute of William and Mary, compels the Sovereign to call God to witness that the worship and belief and creed of an immense majority of Christians are idolatrous, including, as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, the whole Russian Empire. A Declaration would not give offence in the same way as an Oath. It is ridiculous to exact from the Sovereign a specific oath against two of the most precious practices and doctrines of the whole Catholic religion. The Oath was made compulsory to exclude by specific words the descendants of Charles I. from claiming the Throne of England. Does any person out of a lunatic asylum suppose that any descendants of Charles I. have any idea at this time of day of claiming the throne of this kingdom? We know that the descendants of Charles I. were totally excluded, and that our present Sovereign, who is a descendant of James I., required no oath of this kind to establish his right to this kingdom. Therefore I venture to hope that the Oath, which has given so much offence to the feelings of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, will be wholly abolished.