Sitting of 11 March 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Warwick Disfranchisement.
Petitions presented. By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Bath, against any Legislative Enactment, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, and Messrs. WYNN and SPRING RICE, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. FITZGERALD, from Knockbridge, for the Abolition of Tithes, and the Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. HAWES, from Lambeth, in favour of the Bill for the Suppression of Sunday Trading.—By Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, and Messrs. LITTLETON and HANDLEY, from several Places,—against any Measures likely to lessen the Efficacy of the Established Church.—By Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, from Quadring, for Extending the Labourer's Employment Act.—By Mr. EVANS, and Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from certain Licensed Retailers of Beer,—to be placed upon the same Footing as Licensed Victuallers.—By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Mr. AGLIONEY, and Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, from several Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Sir JOHN RAE REID, Colonel EDWARDS, and Messrs. PEASE, CRAWFORD, VERNON, and COTES, from a Number of Places,—for the Better
2
Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. ORTON, from the Coroners of Cumberland, for Augmenting their Fees.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from the Shipowners of Greenock, to be relieved from the Payment of Light House Dues.—By Mr. CARTWRIGHT, from two Places, for the Repeal of the Duty on Malt; and from one Place, for a Commutation of Tithes.—By Messrs. SANFORD and CARTWRIGHT, from several Places,—for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Messrs. STRUTT and EVANS, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir GEORGE STAUNTON, Dr. LUSHINGTON, and Messrs. R. GRANT, STRUTT, WILKS, BROCKLEHURST, CHAPMAN, CARTER, and WINNINGTON, from a Number of Places,—for the Redress of the Grievances complained of by the Dissenters.

DISSENTERS' GRIEVANCES.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was anxious, in presenting the petitions which he held in his hand, to occupy as little of the time of the House as possible, conceiving that the demands upon their time were numerous and important; but he also conceived, that it was part of his duty to state who were the petitioners who had signed the present petition; for, though it was a matter very familiar, yet it was of the greatest importance to that House and the country, and especially to those Gentlemen who took an interest in the subject, to know what it was that the petitioners required. The petition was signed by the general body of Dissenting Ministers of the three denominations residing in and about London, composing a body of as respectable and intelligent persons as were to be found of any denomination in the kingdom. They did not pray for a separation of

3
Church and State; though they avowed their conviction that the union between them was not beneficial to the cause of Christianity. With this proposition he did not agree, and, except in a case of absolute necessity, he thought it would be better to abstain from discussing it. The petitioners also stated what they considered the principal practical grievances under which they laboured, viz. a want of general registration, the difficulties in the solemnization of marriages, the difficulties in the burial of their dead, their exclusion from the Universities, and their liabilities to the payment of rates and other compulsory levies for the maintenance of the Established Church. His view of the case was, that these grievances should all be taken up by the Government in one comprehensive measure. In fact, those grievances were so connected, that one could not be remedied without remedying the other. When the subject should be regularly brought forward, he trusted that both sides of the House would unite most heartily in their endeavours to co-operate in one common object; and not allow themselves, however strong their feelings might be, to be led away, but to effect that desirable conciliation which was necessary both for Churchmen and Dissenters.
Mr. Harveysaid, the subjects treated of in the petition were of very great importance to a most respectable and valuable part of the community. It was important that the House should understand what were the feelings of the non-conformist body; but, at the same time, should not attach more weight to a petition coming from their apparently authorised representatives than it deserved. Certainly those Ministers could not be held to speak the sentiments of all the Dissenters, when they said, that they did not desire the separation of Church and State. When they said that the Dissenters did not desire a separation of the Church and State, although they spoke of the union as not being necessary towards the support of Christianity, he must protest against such a speculative dogma; for so it was, and no man could regard the union as an article of faith. He fully concurred in the desire to obtain for the Dissenters a redress of all their practical grievances, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would lend them his support.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that having the honour to be acquainted with many of those individuals who signed this petition, he felt that he should not do justice to them, if he did not express the high sense he entertained of their learning, influence, and piety. His hon. friend, the member for Colchester, had spoken of them in terms of respect which no one who knew them could avoid; but he was apprehensive that the House would not understand, from the manner in which his hon. friend had adverted to them, the real weight of their opinions. The whole non-conformist body were scattered throughout this empire, and had been in existence nearly two centuries; the petitioners were composed of the Dissenting Ministers of the Independent, Baptist, and Presbyterian, denominations of this Metropolis, and within ten miles of London. They were not only entitled to respect on account of their individual intelligence, but, he would take the liberty of saying, that when it was recollected that every one of them had been educated for the Christian ministry, and selected for that office by a large and respectable body of the community, such men, after meeting together, and discussing, did not merely express their own opinion, but gave expression to the sentiments of the vast, he might say, innumerable, body of intelligent, wealthy, and influential Protestant Dissenters in this Metropolis; therefore, whatever sentiment they expressed, might be considered as the expression of the body at large, and, whatever grievance was complained of by them, the House might rest assured, would be universally complained of by the whole body of non-conformists, and, therefore, entitled to the consideration of the House. Much as he respected the manly spirit of the hon. member for Colchester, whose love of liberty might lead him to consider that the severance of Church and State ought to be effected, he begged to say, the Dissenters of the Metropolis did not t wish to make that a prominent subject of discussion now, but rather to confine themselves to practical grievances. He concurred in many of the observations made by the learned Civilian who presented the petition, and the petitioners having committed it to his hands, he being connected with the Church, showed that they did not desire what the learned Civilian could not support, while they were

5
confident of the justice of their claims. This subject would require extensive consideration; and he regretted to observe, that vacillation perplexed the House, and created dissatisfaction amongst the Dissenters out of doors. He was sorry to find that a Member of the Administration had brought forward a measure which he was sure would meet with universal disapprobation. He regretted also, that another subject had been taken out of his hands, by a proposition for a universal National Civil Registration. He was also sorry that the question of Church-rates—another vital subject—was postponed to so late a period in the Session. These questions were all intimately connected with each other, and ought to be discussed in continuity and at once; and he feared, that the manner in which they were treated would cause much trouble to many Members of the House, and occasion his Majesty's Ministers to lose much of that attachment which Protestant Dissenters had hitherto evinced towards them.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordconsidered that the petition presented by the hon. Member should be considered as an official representation of the opinions of the Dissenters. The grievances under which they laboured were very great; and he hoped the House would apply a remedy. Those disabilities disunited the Dissenters from the Established Church, and it was the duty of the Legislature to remove them. He was anxious for one general discussion upon that subject: taking it by piecemeal was not productive of advantage. He heard, from every part of the country which he represented, that the Bill to be introduced for the relief of Dissenters gave no satisfaction.
Mr. Bainesdid not think, that the union of Church and State was one which the petition considered as an important point: he imagined that it was merely a theoretical opinion, and not one which was urged upon the Legislature as requiring an immediate consideration. He had a petition in his hand in which the Dissenters declared that they were favourable to a separation of Church and State, but they reserved the discussion of that question for a future time.
Mr. Langdalebegged leave to make a few observations upon the question before the House. Without pretending to know all the details of the measure which the
6
noble Lord had introduced, he could assure the House, that it was not at all satisfactory to the feelings of the respectable body to which he belonged. The noble Lord was not perhaps aware of the vast number of Roman Catholics inhabiting the county of Lancaster. In the town of Liverpool there were 60,000 Catholics, and in the town of Manchester there were upwards of 40,000. The greater number of these were persons who had come over from Ireland, where they were in the habit of having the marriage ceremony performed according to the rites of their own Church; and it was utterly impossible to persuade them to go through the form of the ceremony again, in order to legalize their marriages. If he properly understood the measure of the noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces, there would be an interference on the part of the Established Church on that point. The very publication of bans, to the omission of which he believed some penal enactment attached, would not be submitted to by these people. They were of the poorer class, and their prejudices were invincible. He did not think that when a measure of conciliation was brought forward, it should be clogged by any clauses which would defeat the object of the boon. He hoped the Bill would be amended in Committee.
Mr. Sheilthought it was a remarkable circumstance that, notwithstanding the petitioners stated they did not at present pray for any separation, they at the outset of their petitions, laid down that abstract doctrine, and appeared to attribute all their grievances to the connexion between Church and State. Although they abstained from calling for separation, it was quite manifest that they called the attention of the House to the source of the evils under which they laboured. The Dissenters would not be contented with the Marriage Bill of the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces. If the Dissenters were relieved from Church rates, why should they not be relieved from tithes? If they could not be legally called on to raise the edifice, why should they be required to support the minister who performed service in it.
Mr. John Stanleyconsidered, that the question of a separation between Church and State affected the members of the Church of England as much as the Dis-

7
senters. He would say, that the Dissenters would be right in attributing the evils under which they laboured to the existence of a dominant Church, if they saw the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) who had been their constant support through the whole of his life—if they saw that he withdrew his measure of relief in deference to the Church of England—if they saw their just demands thus resisted by the Church, and relief rendered incompatible with the existence of the connexion between Church and State—they would be right, he would repeat, in attributing their grievances to this connexion, and calling upon the House to put an end to it as incompatible with the liberties of that country. But if the Government and the House relieved the Dissenters from the disabilities they prayed to be relieved from, then it was clear that the union of Church and State was not incompatible with the rights and just demands of the people of England. They ought to accede to those demands whilst they could do so, and not, by putting off the relief to the last moment, render the Dissenters the irreconcileable enemies of the Establishment.
Colonel Evansbegged leave to say, that the body of Dissenters was extremely dissatisfied with the nature of the Bill brought into that House by the noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces. His constituents concurred in the prayer of the petition, and he would only express a hope that if the noble Lord should be prevented from bringing in a Bill that would satisfy the claims of the Dissenters, that the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Lushington) would take upon himself the important duty of proposing a Bill that would be satisfactory to that numerous and enlightened body.
Sir Richard Vyvyanexpressed his regret, that so many opinions as had been expressed this morning upon so important a subject, should have been allowed to pass without having been replied to. He rose for the purpose of answering an observation of the hon. member for Cheshire (Mr. J. Stanley). That hon. Member had said, that if the members of the Church of England would not give way, and assent to the removal of the grievances under which the Dissenters laboured, then the connexion between Church and State ought to be abolished. He begged leave to say, in reply, that even if the
8
members of the Established Church refused to give way, that was no argument for the dissolution of the connexion between Church and State. The principles of the connexion had long been admitted and recognised, and had descended to us from our forefathers, as part of the established law of the land. He deeply regretted, that in the present petition the Dissenters had avowed their future intention of attacking that connexion. Almost all the gentlemen who advocated the removal of the specific practical grievances used the wards "at present," and "now.' If the present practical grievances were removed, what guarantee had the House, that next Session the Dissenters would not come and apply for a separation of Church and State?
Mr. John Stanley, in explanation, said, he had only said, he considered the mention of the connexion of Church and State as a mere speculative opinion; and, with regard to their separation, he had merely said, it would only be required when it should be proved, that the existence of the connexion was incompatible with the obtaining for so large a portion of our fellow-subjects their reasonable and just rights. If upon the removal of the specific grievances, there should exist no other practical grievance, then he could not agree to any speculative measure for dissolving the connexion.
Mr. Sinclairsaid, the hon. Member opposite had faithfully pointed out what the real object of the Dissenters was, and proved to the House, that nothing else would satisfy them but the separation of Church and State. It was true, they did not demand that now—they were too prudent—they wished to put it off, and to content themselves with some minor matters. But why did they act so? Because they knew they would not succeed at present; and because they required those other things as so many stepping-stones to the other object.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, in reply, that the Dissenters had a right to maintain their opinions; and if they conceived that the connexion between Church and State was hostile to the interests of Christianity, they were perfectly justified in coming forward and stating that. He would repeat, that nothing short of a proper and general system of registration would satisfy the Dissenters, and he regretted

9
that the measure of the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, was not likely to satisfy them. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, he would observe, that the question of tithes was not introduced in the petitions of the Dissenters; and he trusted, that such a question would not be raised on the present occasion.
Petition laid on the Table.

CHURCH PATRONAGE IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. Sinclairpresented a Petition from the City of Edinburgh, against the system of Church Patronage in Scotland, and two petitions from other places in Scotland, upon the same subject. The hon. Member said, he perceived that the national cemetery for petitions was prepared for the reception of the important document, which he had the honour to present; but in consigning it to the leathern mausoleum under the Table, he could not rest satisfied with acting the part of a mute. He had often admired the alacrity which Irish Members evinced when laying petitions before the House, to vindicate the motives of their constituents from misrepresentation, or to enforce their sentiments by argument. He should imitate their zeal, though he could not equal their eloquence; and he would venture to claim the indulgence of the House, whilst he brought under its notice a petition against Church Patronage, from the metropolis of Scotland, signed by several thousand inhabitants, comprising ministers and elders of the Church, and other persons most ardently attached to its doctrines and institutions. He took that opportunity of noticing an aspersion which had been cast on the petitioners, and others who held similar opinions. They had been charged, not only within the House, but in many influential quarters out of doors, with maintaining principles repugnant to the constitution of the Established Church, which had been uniformly opposed by its most distinguished champion, and must lead, if triumphant, to its subversion. In justice to those who had honoured him with the care of their petitions, and against whom no accusation could be more painful to their feelings, more injurious to their character, or more unmerited by the line of conduct which they had adopted, he should not express any sentiment of his own, but submit to the
10
candour of those who had attacked them, the recorded opinions of a very few amongst the cloud of witnesses whom he might cite in justification of their views. A pamphlet was written on the subject, by Lord Dreghorn, an eminent Judge of the last century, who said, that "an opportunity of knowing the particulars of most of the violent settlements for ten years past, had given rise to its publication." His lordship observed, 'that it is plain to common sense, that the right of patronage is incompatible with the Presbyterian religion. One of them must yield; by endeavouring to keep up both, we run into much absurdity, contradiction, and indecency.' He maintained that 'it has a manifest tendency to bring religion into contempt with the common people. What can be more shockingly absurd, than to see a minister of the Gospel settled by a troop of dragoons? what more disgusting, than to see a minister of the Gospel, though disregarded and despised by every person in the parish, sit down contented, because, nevertheless, he enjoys the manse, the glebe, and the stipend? The common people are too sensible not to discover that the object which patrons, and others in power, have, is not the advancement of religion, nor the comfort and instruction of the people, but the subsistence of a friend or dependent, and that what this intruding pastor has in view, is not to tend the flock, but to shear the golden fleece.'—'It will not,' says Dr. M'Crie, 'be denied by any who understand and love the principles of the Church of Scotland, that patronage is a grievance.' And again, 'Is there a minister of the Church of Scotland—I speak not of elders—but is there a minister, except one who has pledged himself in the cause beyond the hope of redemption, who will stand up in defence of lay patronage, who will deny that it is a grievance, or plead that it is a method of admitting persons to the charge of souls honourable to the individual nominated; conducive to the spiritual interests of the people; consistent with the due freedom of the Church Courts; or, what is of still higher moment than all of these, pleasing in the eyes of the Chief Shepherd?' 'The great complaints,' says Dr. Chalmers, 'of our more ancient assemblies—the great burthen of Scot-

11
tish indignation—the practical grievance which, of all others, has been hitherto felt the most intolerable and galling to the hearts of a free and religious people,—is the violent intrusion of ministers on parishes. An effectual provision against this enormity, this unfeeling outrage, which, in the exercise of a reckless and unprincipled patronage, has so often been perpetrated in our beloved land—an outrage, by the appointment of an ungodly party, on the rights of conscience, and the religious sensibilities of a sorely aggrieved people—a provision against so deep and so wide a moral injury as this to the families of a parish, I should feel the most valuable of all the legislative expedients or devices which could be proposed on the present occasion.' To the same purpose, it was maintained by another divine, Dr. Macfarlan, of Greenock, in a very able and temperate pamphlet on this subject, that this system of lay patronage is utterly indefensible; and, in point of fact, has not been defended by any one, except by the vituperations of the opposite system of popular elections. No attempt has been made in the present day, so far as I know, to defend the principles of an absolute and unmodified patronage, at least by any man who has thought seriously upon this subject, or is capable of reasoning and judging with respect to it. By the silence of its friends, it is virtually admitted to be erroneous." The power is so great, the duty of a patron so arduous, and the consequences of an unwise or a corrupt election are so injurious, that the right of patronage ought not to be vested as a patrimonial right in any one individual. By this system, the happiness of hundreds or perhaps thousands of our fellow-men, their religious and moral improvement, their usefulness as members of society, and their spiritual welfare, are placed in the hands of one person, and in so far as the means of salvation are concerned, are entirely at his disposal.' With what force, and what justice did he afterwards proceed to observe, that 'by possessing the right of presentation irresponsibly and as a kind of property, patrons are under strong temptations to employ it for private purposes. If they have no fear of God before their eyes, no hope of their responsibility to Him, and none of
12
the spirit of a pure and enlightened benevolence, they will infallibly regard the right of patronage as nothing more than the means of gratifying a friend, or bribing a political opponent, or rewarding the services of a useful and active adherent. This temptation is felt to be peculiarly strong in those cases where the patron has no property in the parish or does not reside in it. There is no tie of affection or interest binding him to the inhabitants; and if he be, as we are now supposing, a stranger to the principles and feelings of an enlarged philanthrophy, their religious and moral improvement will be forgotten or wilfully disregarded amidst the calls of private friendship, or the mean and despicable considerations of political expediency.' Dr. Brown, of Langton, a divine of great learning and ability, after contending that the Church of Scotland never recognised the right of the people to elect their ministers as founded in Scripture, or in principles of ecclesiastical polity, added, that 'she looked upon patronage as an evil and a grievance, and submitted to it from necessity, and looked forward to the day when she hoped that it would be abolished.' He should only further trouble the House by referring to three periods in the ecclesiastical annals of Scotland, which illustrated the effects of patronage, and might enable them to apply the great Christian principle of trying a system by its fruits. The following was the account given of the state of Scotland in 1648, in the 'Acknowledgment of Sins,' printed with the 'Confessions of Faith.' Patronage had at that time existed, partly in conjunction with episcopacy, and partly without it, during a long course of years, and the consequences were stated as follow:—
1648—ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SINS.
We have refused to be reformed, and have walked proudly and obstinately against the Lord, not valuing his gospel, nor submitting ourselves unto the obedience thereof; not seeking after Christ, not studying to honour him in the excellency of his person, nor employ him in the virtue of his offices, nor making conscience of public ordinances, nor private nor secret duties, nor studying to edify one another in love. Ignorance of God, and of his son Jesus Christ, prevails exceedingly in the land. The greatest part of masters of families, amongst Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, and Commons, neglect to seek God in their families, and to endeavour

13
the reformation thereof; and, albeit, it hath been much pressed, yet few of our nobles and great men, even to this day, could be persuaded to perform family duties themselves, and in their own persons, which makes so necessary and useful a duty to be misregarded by others of inferior rank. Nay, many of the Nobility, Gentry, and Barons, who should have been examples of godliness and sober walking unto others, have been ringleaders of excess and rioting.
It were impossible to reckon up all the abominations that are in the land; but this blaspheming of the name of God, swearing by the creatures, profanations of the Lord's Day, uncleanness, drunkenness, excess of rioting, variety of apparel, lying and deceit, railing and cursing, arbitrary and uncontrolled oppression, and grinding of the faces of the poor by landlords, and others in place power, are become ordinary and common sins.
In 1649 this system was abolished, and ceased to be in operation for several years; and Kirkton thus described the condition of the Church at the Restoration, when a more popular system of elections, decreed by the assembly, to which the power had been delegated by Parliament, had for some time prevailed:—
At the King's return every parish had a minister—every village had a school—every family almost had a Bible, as in most of this country, all their children of age could read the Scriptures, and were provided with Bibles, either by their parents, or by their ministers. Every minister was a very full professor of the reformed religion, according to the large confession of faith framed at Westminster by the divines of both nations. Every minister was obliged to preach thrice a-week, to lecture and catechise, besides other private duties, in which they abounded, according to their proportions of faithfulness and abilities. None of them might be scandalous in their conversations, or negligent in their office, so long as a Presbytery stood, and among them were many holy in conversation and eminent in gift; nor did a minister satisfy himself unless his ministry had the seal of a divine approbation, as might witness him to be really sent of God. Indeed, in many places the Spirit seemed to be poured out with the word, both by the multitude of the sincere converts, and also by the common work of reformation upon many who never came the length of conversion.
After a communion, there were no fewer than sixty aged people, men and women, who went to school, that even then they might be able to read the Scriptures with their own eyes. I have lived many years in a parish where I never heard an oath; and you might have ridden many a mile before you heard any; also, you could not, for a great part of the country, have lodged in a family where
14
the Lord was not worshipped by reading, singing, and prayer. Nobody complained of our Church Government more than our taverners, whose ordinary lamentation was, their trade was broken, people were become so sober. Marchmont, who had been a witness and partaker of what had passed in his own time, gives his testimony to the truth of what is here narrated.
Such was the state of this Church, by irrefragable evidence, proved to have been during that important period. Dr. Chalmers says:—
It was when a high-handed patronage reigned uncontrolled, and without a rival, that discord and dissent multiplied in our parishes. The seasons immediately succeeding to 1649 and 1690, when the power of negation was lodged with the people, not, however, as a force in exercise, but as a force in reserve; these were the days of our Church's greatest prosperity and glory, the seasons both of peace and righteousness. Persecution put an end to the one period, and unrestrained patronage put an end to the other.
Without adverting to the intermediate periods, what, he would ask, was the statement of Dr. M'Cire, as to the state of the Church in 1784, when the Act of Anne had been in operation for seventy-years?
From the Revolution down to the Present day, never were the interests of religion sunk lower within her pale than they were in the year 1784. Truth and godliness sickened and pined away under the influence of false philosophies and a specious moderation. Socinianism had notoriously infected the minds of not a few of the clergy, and we know, from the highest authority, that some of the most active managers in ecclesiastical affairs could with difficulty be restrained from bringing forward a Motion for discarding the confessions of faith and all texts of orthodoxy—a fit Motion to accompany its predecessor, which virtually declared, in the face of the unanimous judgment of the Church of Scotland form the beginning, that patronage was no grievance! None more fit for wreathing an oppressive and degrading yoke about the necks of the people than those who would release themselves from the obligations of the most reasonable bonds, into which they had themselves voluntarily entered. But no minister will now choose to recall that melancholy era, and I scarcely think that even a ruling elder, honourable or simple, will be found so bold as to appeal to the act by which the light of the Church of Scotland was put under a bushel, and her glory turned to shame. If our rowers wish to shipwreck the vessel, of which they have obtained the management, they will steer it by the lurid star of 1784.
He had made these extracts in vindica-

15
tion of many respectable petitioners. No imputation was more grievous to them, than to be taxed with hostility to the Church Establishment of Scotland. He had endeavoured to show, that they were borne out in their opinions by the concurrent testimonies of many persons, whose names were associated in Scotland with everything that was true, honest, and of good report—that when the system, for which they contended, was practically tried, it produced the happiest results—and that the reign of uncontrolled patronage was, at least, not uniformly referred to as the season when dissent was silent, the people satisfied, the doctrines of the Church most faithfully preached, and its ministers possessed in the highest degree the confidence, respect, and affection of their parishioners.
Petition laid on the Table.

OATHS OF CATHOLIC MEMBERS.
Mr. O'Connellrose to move for the appointment of a Committee to consider the oaths which were taken, and those, if any, which ought to be taken by Members of the House. He trusted that the importance of the question would induce the House to comply and allow of the nomination of the Committee. He acknowledged that his object was to abolish all religious oaths upon Members taking their seats in that House, and, if necessary, to substitute a declaration disclaiming, in the most unequivocal manner, all species of bribery and corruption at their election. Whether the House were disposed to go so far as he wished to go or not, ought not to influence them in deciding the question, whether a Committee should be appointed or not. He was prepared to lay before the House the strongest grounds for the appointment of such a Committee; and they were to be found in the nature of oaths taken, being different in one class of Members from those of another. In fact, there were established three different modes of swearing or affirming in coming into that House—the Protestant swore—the Catholic swore—the Quaker affirmed—and the Moravian would have an equal right to take his seat on making an affirmation if elected. He thought, that the time had now arrived when the necessity of taking an oath because of the religious persuasion of the person to whom it was administered, ought to be done away.
16
The oath ought to be a universal one, and in such an oath he of course included affirmations. The recollection of the oath only existed while the Members were at the Table taking it, and for the rest of the period that they sat in the House it was completely forgotten. It might be said, that such a form of oath was meant to convey subjugation on the one, and domination to the other. An oath founded on such a principle, would be scouted by an overwhelming number in that House. The Catholics in that House ought not to be placed in an invidious light. He wished the distinctive character of the oaths administered should be abolished, and that all chance of equivocation in respect to the oath should be for ever set at rest. He asked, if there ought to be the slightest chance of equivocation existing in respect to any oath that might be taken by Members in that House? He felt disgusted as a Catholic, that any one in that House should put a different construction upon the oath which he had taken, but that which the oath conveyed, and which he solemnly felt it ought to bear. He contended, that the person taking an oath should be bound by the plain meaning of the oath, and not by the construction he or any other person might give it. The oath taken by the Catholics in this House should not have any other construction put on it than that which it bore upon the face of it. With all the respect he had for the opinions of hon. Members in general, he differed from them, and more particularly from the hon. member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Johnston), when they said, that Catholics did not feel themselves bound by the oath, unless upon their construction of it. The hon. member for St. Andrew's was a gentleman of strict integrity, no doubt, and as such would be conscientiously bound by the meaning, and not his own construction of an oath. Then why, he would ask, should the hon. Member conclude that the Catholics possessed not as much integrity, and were not as regardful of the solemn obligation of an oath according to its meaning as the hon. Member or other conscientious men? He would wish the House to understand, that he (Mr. O'Connell) would not be there if he conceived for a moment that he could take the oath according to the construction which he or any other Catholic might

17
choose to put on it. He would in the most solemn manner declare that he would vacate his seat in this House if he thought that a different construction of the oath, from that which the House attached to it, had been by possibility put on it by him. There was a magazine called the "Catholic Magazine"—one, doubtless, very little known to the Members of this House, and indeed to the country generally. It was edited by highly talented and learned Catholic clergymen; it was needless to say religious, and, as such, conscientious men. In this work it had been rather a matter of controversy whether Catholics could conscientiously take the oath imposed upon them on becoming Members of that House. For his part, he would not hesitate to say, that he had taken the oath according to its meaning, and in the full sense attached to it by the House; and he felt that he could do so with a safe conscience, and with the most perfect regard to the religion which he professed, and in relation to the religion of the State, which he could have no desire to disturb. There could be no controversy about the oath as it now stood, because there was nothing in it to prevent a Catholic from acting as he pleased with respect to the temporalities of the Established Church, either as regarded the power, authority, or emoluments of the Church. But it might very reasonably be asked why there were any oaths of a distinctive religious nature at all? It was in the reign of Henry 6th that an oath was first tendered to a Member of the House of Commons, and for only one year in that reign. The oath was merely to bind the Members to keep the peace. It was preceded by no other, nor was it followed by any other, until the distinctions in the religious communities took place at the Reformation. By the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 1, s. 9, the Oath of Supremacy was enacted, but it was not required to be taken by any Member of that House. By the 5th of Elizabeth, the Oath of Supremacy was, for the first time, required, However, the great majority of the Peers still continuing to be Catholics, there was an express clause that the oath should not be required of the Lords, and it was not required till the reign of James 1st. From the 5th of Elizabeth, till the 1st of William and Mary, the law stood in this way; and, in the 7th year of that
18
reign both Houses were required to take the Oath of Supremacy. That oath distinctly asserted the King's supremacy, not only over temporal matters, but, in the words of the oath, over all spiritual causes and things. This was changed at the Revolution—and why? Because the Presbyterians of Scotland could not acknowledge the King as a spiritual head. To meet their scruples the oath was changed into a negation of spiritual dominion in any foreign prince, prelate, or authority whatsoever. That satisfied both Presbyterians and members of the Established Church; but it was as repugnant to the Catholics as the former oath, for they did acknowledge a spiritual authority resident in a foreign country—viz., the authority of the head of their church—the Pope. The act of the 1st of Elizabeth did not extend to Ireland; and, although the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth did extend to Ireland in terms, it did not in terms extend to the Irish House of Commons, so that, throughout the reigns of Elizabeth, James 1st, and Charles 1st, there was no obligation upon members of the Irish Parliament to take the Oath of Supremacy. But in May, 1661, the Irish House of Commons, consisting of Cromwellian officers and soldiers, passed a Bill to make it obligatory upon members to take that oath; but the Bill was subsequently lost, and Catholics sat in Parliament until after the Revolution. In violation of the Treaty of Limerick, the English Parliament passed an Act (the 13th and 14th of William and Mary, c.2.) to compel members of the Irish Parliament to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration. But that Act was constitutionally void in Ireland until the year 1782, when an Act of the Irish Parliament gave it the force of a law of the land. He was thus particular in going through these details, in order to show, that religious oaths formed no part of the original constitution of that House, but that they were invented merely for the purpose of excluding persons professing certain religious opinions, from the privileges of seats in Parliament. But this reason no longer existed, and it was absurd and ridiculous to continue the practice. In 1829, considerable alteration was made. In that year an act was passed which established the oath which was at present taken by the Roman Catholics; and by the same Act

19
another very excellent alteration was made by striking out of the oath taken by Protestants the declaration that the worship of their fellow-countrymen, the Catholics, was impious and idolatrous. That was an excellent alteration, for it would not have been pleasant to have sat and heard the old oath administered. There were, however, still some strange anomalies between the oaths taken by the Members of that House. On one side of the board he saw three oaths that were required to be taken by the Protestant, while, on the other side, he found only one that the Catholic was required to take. The Protestant was called upon to abjure the house of Stuart, while the Catholic was not. Now, he had always understood that, in point of politics, the Catholics were the class of persons who were most likely to have a leaning that way; he should have thought the common-sense view of the matter was, that that oath should have been exacted from the Catholic, while the Protestant should have been exempted from it. Protestants were also called upon to swear that they would never bear any allegiance to any descendants of James 2nd. And, how stood the fact? Why, no such descendant was now in existence. Was not that taking God's name in vain? Would it not be more in accordance with the spirit of the present day that all Members should be required to take one oath only—that of allegiance to the Crown—which was an oath in which all could join—no Protestant would refuse it, and no Catholic had the slightest objection whatever to it. The Catholic oath, in its former part, was an oath of fidelity and allegiance. He saw no objection to that, though it was certainly different from that adopted by Protestants. He was ready to testify his allegiance to the heirs of Princess Sophia, being Protestants, as if the oath had been administered to him; but there was a part of the oath which he considered a complete insult:—"And I do further declare that it is not any article of my faith that any princes excommunicated by the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any person whatsoever. Why should the Catholic be called upon to swear that he should have no objection to make the declaration? But what right, he would ask, had the House to insult him, by calling upon him to take such an
20
oath? Was it possible for any man to be so destitute of moral feeling as to consider that he had a right to murder any man because the Pope excommunicated him? In his opinion the oath would be no sanction to any man who believed in anything so monstrous and unjust. He called for a Committee to inquire whether such an oath was necessary; if it were, he would bend his neck to the yoke—he would submit. But he denied, that it was necessary, and, therefore, he considered it imperative on him to call the attention or the House to it. He had the most ineffable contempt for the doctrine implied in that oath. To that part of the oath wherein the Pope's jurisdiction was renounced, he had no objection. He would pledge his most solemn sanction to that—but, if it were necessary to swear resistance, even unto death, of any foreign interference in these matters in these realms, there was no Protestant half as anxious as he was to take such an oath. But what dread did any rational person entertain of the temporal power of the Pope? Heaven help the maniac who could imagine that the Pope, who was trembling for his own small dominions, could put the temporal authorities of these kingdoms into jeopardy. Was it not a monstrous thing to think, that these realms should at any time be invaded by a regiment of cardinals, and a squadron of friars turned into riflemen? The oath then went on—"And I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property in this realm as by law established." That prevented his making any alteration in the law regarding property, but it was an undoubted fact, that that law had been frequently altered. He could mention an instance in which, by an net passed during the last year, a gentleman became the inheritor of property to the amount of 4,000 l. a year, which he could not inherit as the law previously stood, and which he had not the most remote prospect of enjoying. Therefore, that part of the oath was quite absurd, and the man who took it that year would have different impressions on his mind from the man who took it the previous year. He only threw that out to show how far equivocation would go as regarded that oath. The argument he used had been used on a former occasion with respect to the Coronation Oath. What millions of pamphlets—what masses

21
of arguments and thousands of speeches had been used regarding the violation of the Coronation Oath, all turning on the mere equivocation of the words, or the different interpretations which different individuals might give them! Did it require the Catholics, any more than the Protestants, to swear that they would defend the state of property? If they did not swear the Protestants, why did they swear the Catholics? The oath then went on—"And I hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the Church Establishment, as by law established within the realm." The same solution might be applied to that as to the former paragraph; and here again he would adduce the occurrences of last year, when Ministers had passed the Church Temporalities Bill—a Bill which had unsettled the Church Establishment more than any Act that had taken place since the Revolution. What he (Mr. O'Connell) required, was a Committee which should put an end to these equivocations. The oath went on—"And I do solemnly swear, that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may be entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or Protestant Government within the realm." What was the meaning of Protestant Government now in this country? Was a man satisfied to swear that Government was a Protestant Government, when the whole of it might be Catholic. The whole of the judicial seats might be filled with Catholics, with the exception of the Chancellor; when the navy, the army, and the Magistrates might be Catholics? In point of law, all who were admitted into the Government, with the exception of the Chancellor, might be Catholics. Was it safe, then, to swear, that such a Government was a Protestant Government, when there were only two officers—the King and Chancellor—at all connected with it, whom it was necessary should be Protestant? He could not but feel that this was a point of great difficulty. He might be laughed at for his scruples, but he could not help acknowledging his scruples on this subject had been very great. He had been told, that it was the Legislature itself which had passed the Act, and as the word Protestant had been introduced, must have intended such a Protestant Government as now existed to have been understood—namely, composed only, as it
22
might be, of a Protestant King and Protestant keeper of his conscience, all the other members being Catholics. He trusted he had not done wrong in taking up a strong feeling on this question; but such feeling he entertained. Was it intended to be said, that there was not a great difference between Protestantism and a Protestant Government? They certainly were, as far as he was capable of distinguishing between them, most essentially different; and this was a fact which the House ought gravely to consider, when it called upon Members who took their seats there to take the oaths which it was considered necessary to administer to them. What was the meaning of the word privilege in the Catholic's oath? He knew that Johnson gave it two meanings—namely, immunity and advantage. Immunity was here out of the question. Then, as to the other meaning: could it bear that? Was, he would ask, sitting in that House an advantage? Surely not, for he and every Christian could have a scat in that House. He called on them, then, to define the meaning of the word privilege. As far as he was concerned, he did not wish to vote upon any matters relative to Church affairs—not because the word privilege was in the oath, but, as a Catholic, he did not think he should interfere in these concerns. The word privilege, then, was equivocal, and he wished all equivocation to be got rid of, so that it would be out of the power of one hon. Member to put one construction upon the oath, and another hon. Member another. There should, in fact, be no mistake upon the subject, everything respecting it should be intelligible. He thought he had certainly made out a case for au inquiry into this oath in particular, so that it might be put upon a footing which would take away all equivocation in its meaning. But, he asked, whether he had not made out a case for inquiry generally, for why should the Protestant be called upon to take the name of God in vain by abjuring the House of Stuart. The thing would be laughed at out of this House; for his own part, he did not know or care whether the Sardinian royal family was nearer to the House of Stuart than our own, but if he were a Protestant, he did not think, that he could take the present oath of supremacy. Then he came to that part of the oath which declares that no foreign prince

23
or prelate has, or ought to have, authority ecclesiastical, or temporal, within this realm. Now, he could conceive a Protestant denying that there ought to be any supremacy by a foreign prelate in this country, but he could not see how the same person could swear that the Pope had not authority and supremacy in the realm. He did not see how this could be sworn to by a Protestant in the presence of him (Mr. O'Connell) who acknowledged that supremacy. When a college for the education of Catholic clergymen was supported by Act of Parliament, and visitors, Protestant and Catholic, appointed over it by Act of Parliament, that Act expressly ordering, that all matters relating to the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church should be under the control of Roman Catholics, it was most absurd to make a solemn attestation to God in that House, that the Pope had no spiritual authority in these realms. He had such authority, and he had spiritual jurisdiction as sure as the sun would rise to-morrow. There might have been some feasible excuse for such an assertion, when the Parliament consisted exclusively of Protestants, and when that Parliament, one and all, would not recognize that authority. But of what use was it now, when there was no longer any distinctive reprobation of Catholics, or any distinctive exaltation of Protestants? He thought, that in such a case the House, at least, could not refuse a Committee of Inquiry. He knew the Catholic oaths had been framed as a safeguard for the State—a safeguard forsooth! He had read a thousand speeches in which the uniform expression was, "if you let Catholics into the House, you will upset the old institutions of the country—for though they may be only few—only forty or fifty in number—they will always league together; and, by so doing, have the power of injuring Protestantism, and the State, to a fearful extent." Now, what was the fact of the case? Since the admission of Catholics to the House, they had never voted together but once, and that once, he was happy and proud to say, was in favour of the Jewish Relief Bill. On the Reform Bill, one Catholic gentleman of high rank and very large property voted against the country, and on all other questions they were never united. Not only did the English Catholics differ from
24
the Irish, but the English and Irish Roman Catholics also differed among themselves. This was a convincing proof of the absurdity of the prophecies and the uselessness of the oaths. If any oaths were to be taken at the Table, let them be respecting the conduct of Members in that House. Let them be subjected to the same obligations to do justice as were imposed upon Judges and Juries. Let each Member swear, or solemnly declare, that he would vote according to his conscience. But, above all, what the people most particularly required was, that their Representatives should pledge themselves that no means of corruption or bribery had been used to obtain their seats. These were the topics to which a Committee should direct its attention, and upon which the House should afterwards adjudicate. Reform was of little value to the lower classes of the constituency, if the higher classes were to be permitted still to carry on the system of corruption by bribes. He did not press this particular point much, but he claimed it as one of the topics which the Committee should take into its consideration. He should not trouble the House further, but, thanking them most gratefully for the patient attention with which he had been heard, he begged to assure the House, that he brought this question forward in the full sincerity of a conscientious belief, that it was absolutely necessary a final construction should be put upon this Act, and that if distinctions were to exist between one side of the House and the other, they should be so marked and prominent that no man could be in any doubt as to their force and extent. He concluded by moving, "that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the oaths now required by law to be taken by Members of that House, and to report its observations thereon to the House; and also to consider the propriety of altering or abolishing those oaths, and substituting other oaths or declarations in lieu thereof."
Lord Althorpdid not intend to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through the arguments which he had advanced, but should content himself with saying a few words in reply to his observations. The first question that presented itself upon this subject was upon a point of form—namely, whether, even supposing the Motion to be a proper one in sub-

25
stance, the referring such a question to a Select Committee was the proper mode of dealing with it. There was no inquiry for the Committee to make with regard to facts. The House was already in possession of all that could be known on the subject. It had the oaths before it, and was as competent to decide upon their nature and effect without the intervention of a Committee, as it could be afterwards. The question, therefore, was one which, in all reason, ought to be decided by the whole House; that was the only way in which it could be satisfactorily and properly decided. Having made this objection to the Motion in point of form, he should not, as he had said, follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through his arguments, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman had paid any attention (which, perhaps, he had not) to the opinions declared by those with whom he acted, he would know, that as to the question of these particular oaths, they had never laid any great stress upon their value as a security; but the House must recollect, that at the time when the Catholic question was discussed, objections were made, not merely by Members of that House, but by numerous bodies out of doors, to the removal of all securities; and it was considered necessary to the carrying of that question, that such concessions should be made to the popular feeling on this point, as would be compatible with the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion and full liberty of conscience. That took place five years ago, and the question which he should submit was, whether it would be prudent, at that time, to discuss the subject, with a view to the removal of what had, at least, been considered a great safeguard at the time of the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill. At the same time that he said this, he must confess, that he agreed in a great measure with what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said with respect to oaths. He knew that there were many who differed from him upon this subject. He had great difficulty in entering into their feelings, but he thought, that at a time so little remote from the period when that compact was made, it world be unwise to open the question again. He repeated, however, that in a great deal of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman he coincided. The oaths were intended not to
26
interfere with the privileges of those Catholics who should be sent to that House. As to the construction which the hon. and learned Gentleman said some persons put upon the Catholic Oath, it had been so completely disavowed by the House on a former occasion, that no Roman Catholic Member need feel any scruple of conscience at what had been intended by the oath. This being the view which he took of the question, he thought it would be better for the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose a Bill explaining the view which he took of the Act, and what ought to be the construction of the oath. He believed the House would be inclined to concur in his opinion, that it would not be prudent now to enter into the question. It did not appear to him that there was any great practical grievance to be complained of. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the oath taken by the Protestant Members was a greater grievance to them than the Catholic Oath to the Catholics; but he did not think there was reason to complain of any great practical grievance on either side. He had only to repeat, in conclusion, that knowing the feelings of a great number of persons in this country, he doubted the propriety of opening up the question.
Mr. Langdaleconcurred with the hon. and learned member for Dublin that upon the words of the oath some difficulty and doubt did arise. When that was the case, the only course to be pursued was, to see what interpretation was put upon oaths of a similar character. Were there any oaths of a similar character to those in question? The first to which he should allude was the oath taken by the King himself. Different opinions prevailed as to the construction and effect of that oath; and he well remembered the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, positively stating, when the Bill for the reform of the Irish Church was introduced last year, that it was incompatible with the King's oath to sanction such a measure. Now, in what more direct terms were the Catholic Members called upon to speak than those employed in the King's oath? His Majesty was asked by the Archbishop, "Will you preserve to the bishops and clergy of the Established Faith the churches committed to their care, with all the rights and privileges which do or shall appertain to them?" and he an-

27
swered, "I will." The same latitude of interpretation must be allowed to the Catholic Oath as to that taken by the King. There was another oath framed a short time before the Catholic Oath. When the Test and Corporation Acts were done away with, an oath was provided to be taken by all his Majesty's subjects upon entering office. The Ministers of the Crown were bound by exactly the same oath as the Catholics in Parliament. The Catholic Oath was, as nearly as possible, word for word the same as the oath taken by the Ministers of the Crown; and did any man mean to state that that oath prevented the Ministers of the Crown from giving the King such advice as they thought would be for the benefit of the country. The oath taken by the King's Ministers was, that they would not exercise any power, authority, or influence, which they possessed by virtue of their office, to injure or weaken the Protestant Church, or to disturb the bishops and clergy of that Church in the possession of their rights and privileges. These were nearly the very words used in the Catholic Oath. No man could suppose that, in introducing the Church Reform Bill which they had brought in last year, the Ministers of the Crown had acted in contradiction of that oath. At the same time he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that it was most desirable this question should be settled. He and the other Catholic Members stood in a most painful position, because it was in the power of any man to insinuate that they were regardless of the obligations of their oath. It was therefore only an act of justice to clear up the point one way or another. For his own part, he would never condescend to sit in that House if he were not to enjoy the same privileges as his fellow-subjects. He would not consent to hold his scat there under pretence of being a legislator, but without power to legislate; or to be marked with a stigma, as belonging to an inferior class. In that case the Catholic Members would have been sent to that House under a false presumption, for their constituents supposed that they were to have the same powers as the Protestant Members. He should be happy to concur in any course which would most speedily and satisfactorily settle the question.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he concurred with
28
the noble Lord in the opinion he had expressed, that, if it were advisable that this question should be taken into consideration at all, it ought not to be referred to a Select Committee. It was a matter upon which the House of Commons ought itself to decide. It belonged to the House and not to a Select Committee to regulate the qualifications and conditions upon which a Member should hold his seat. He did not concur with the noble Lord, when he said that this objection was one of form. It was more than a question of mere form; it was a question of principle. The noble Lord had justly said, that the House had before it the oaths taken both by Protestant and Catholic Members. There was, therefore, no necessity for further inquiry through the medium of a Committee, and he for one would not consent to devolve upon a Committee the duty of deciding whether those oaths should or should not be taken. He would not allow a Committee, by such a decision, to prejudice the future consideration of the question by the House. It was quite clear that, if the subject was to be considered at all, it ought to be by bringing in a Bill to alter the oaths, and it was of great importance not to confound the provinces of Committees and of the House, because their operations would be impeded, and their usefulness impaired, if they were so confounded. With regard to the proposal for a Committee of Inquiry, he thought that the argument of the noble Lord was quite conclusive against it. But, in addition to that argument, the hon. and learned member for Dublin had also afforded him another. The hon. and learned Member had said, that if that Committee were to put a certain construction upon the words of the Catholic Oath, he should feel himself bound in conscience to vacate his seat. The moment the hon. and learned Gentleman allowed that sentence to escape his lips, he felt that the hon. Member had furnished the House with an irresistible argument against his own proposition. If a Committee were to have power to express an opinion which should compel a member to vacate his seat, the House ought not to consent to the appointment of such a Committee. It ought, if his expression of an opinion were unavoidable, to express it on the authority of the whole House to appoint it, especially when the

29
House was at least as competent as any Committee which it might appoint to form a decision upon the subject? Independently, however, of these considerations, he regretted exceedingly that this question had been agitated at all. He thought that if it could have been foreseen by the people of England in the year 1829, that, within the short space of five years, from the passing of the act which removed from the Roman Catholics every civil disability under which they laboured, an attempt would be made to repeal the oaths which were devised as securities by the framers of that Act, and that such an attempt would be made by a Roman Catholic member of so much weight and influence with his fellow-Catholics as the hon. and learned member for Dublin, the difficulties which attended the passing of that act of relief, would have been greatly, perhaps, insuperably increased. He did not mean to contend that there had been any formal compact made with the Catholic body for the maintenance of the existing oaths, but there had been a compact which, although tacit, was well understood both by Catholics and Protestants, and which ought to be morally conclusive. Nothing could be more unwise, after the people of England had been prevailed on to forego their deep-rooted impressions on this subject, and after the House of Lords, which had repeatedly placed on record its objections to any measure of Catholic relief, had been prevailed on to relinquish its opposition to it—after both the people of England and the Mouse of Lords had considered these oaths to be valid securities against the dangers which they apprehended, or, if not valid securities, to be at least the best that could be devised, nothing could be more unwise, nothing more calculated to check all liberal concessions in future, than the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman to set aside the conditions on which the disabilities had been removed. From the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had argued respecting the Roman Catholic oath, a stranger would infer that it was an oath recently devised, required from the Roman Catholics now for the first time, that it was an oath which, if not grating to their consciences, was certainly revolting to their feelings. But the House surely was aware that this oath was not imposed for the first time on our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects by the Relief Bill.
30
At the period of introducing the Relief Bill no one had been more desirous than himself to exclude from the oath every declaration or disclaimer that could be either grating or insulting to his Catholic countrymen. He had met with considerable difficulty in carrying the oath so cautiously and so guardedly worded through that House; but he had been fortunate enough to overcome that difficulty, and so had been enabled to exclude from that oath every thing which could be construed to imply in point of civil worth inferiority on the part of the Roman Catholics. Was not the hon. and learned Member aware, that, under an act passed by the Irish Parliament, in 1793, he was required to abjure on oath many principles and doctrines imputed to the Roman Catholics, and that he could not have been called to the bar without so abjuring them? Let the House compare the oath prescribed by the Act of 1793 with that prescribed by the Act of 1829, and it would see how much less reason the Roman Catholics had to complain of the latter oath than of the former. It was insulting to the feelings of the hon. and learned Member, he said, that he should be called upon to declare, that "he made the declaration and every part of it in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of the oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever!" If the Roman Catholic had been then, for the first time, or if he specially had been required to make this declaration, he might, perhaps, have reason to complain; but, in the Oath of Abjuration, the Protestant was called upon to make the same declaration, for he was called upon to declare that "all these things he did plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and swear according to the express words by him spoken, and according to the plain sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever." If, then, there were any disparagement to the party who took the Catholic Oath, there was, at any rate, the same disparagement to the party who took the Protestant Oath. The hon. and learned Member had then entered into considerable details, into which he did not intend to follow him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House, that he did not clearly understand what was meant by the terms "Protestant religion, and Protestant Government,

31
as by law established." Now, again, if those terms had been introduced for the first time into the act of 1829, there might have been some foundation for the remark; but what was the oath which the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself taken, in common with every other Irish barrister, in order to exempt himself from the operation of the penal laws? These were the words of the oath, prescribed by the statute of 1793. [The right hon. Baronet read the oath, from which it appeared that the Roman Catholics were called upon to swear, that "they would not exercise any privilege which they might derive from their situation to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion, and the Protestant Government as by law established within these realms."] Every Roman Catholic now at the bar had taken that oath; and he was very much mistaken, if that oath had not been drawn up with the privity and consent of the Roman Catholics themselves. Every word in that oath had been carefully and maturely considered, and Catholic lawyers and Catholic divines, had both certified that there was nothing in it repugnant to the faith, or revolting to the feelings of Roman Catholics. As the Roman Catholic Bill was not passed with undue precipitation, as it was under discussion for several weeks, would it not have been more just if the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated his objections to this oath before the measure of relief was passed? The language perpetually used by the most zealous and powerful advocates of emancipation, by Mr. Grattan, by Mr. Canning, and by Lord Castlereagh, was to this effect:—"Tell us the dangers which you anticipate from Catholic emancipation; tell us the securities which you want against those dangers, and we will obtain satisfaction for you from the Catholic body?" Why, if the grievance was now felt to be so afflicting, was it not stated at the time? But the grievance was not afflicting, and if no Roman Catholic had hitherto refused to accept a seat on account of the difficulties with which this oath incumbered him, was it wise in the Roman Catholic,—was it just to the Protestants of the empire,—to attempt to disturb a settlement which both parties had agreed to consider as final? He considered the Motion to be in every point of view, most impolitic. He did not wish to introduce any acrimony
32
into this discussion—he was always anxious to avoid anything like personality; but he could not help recalling to the recollection of the House that when the hon. and learned Gentleman was returned in 1829 for the county of Clare. He appeared at the Bar of that House, and said in distinct terms, "Let me take the oath provided in the Catholic Relief Bill." The following were the words used by the hon. and learned Member:—"Mr. O'Connell then proceeded to address the House. He said, he thought he could not be accused of affectation, when he stated that he was very ignorant of the forms of that House, and therefore he required the kind indulgence of the House if he should happen to violate them. He said, he was there to claim his right to sit and vote in the House as the Representative of the county of Clare, without taking the Oath of Supremacy. He was ready to take the Oath of Allegiance provided by the recent statute, entitled 'An Act for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. He was desirous to have that oath administered to him, and, of course, must be prepared to verify his qualification in point of property; and whether the House should be of opinion that he ought to be permitted to take the new oath or not, he respectfully required to be allowed to take the qualification oath. If he was allowed to take that oath, be it then at his hazard to sit and vote in the House. If he were allowed only to take that oath, he was content to run the risk of sitting in the House."* It was clear, then, from this extract, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not at that time any objections to urge against the oath, for if he had entertained such objections, he could not have been "ready" and "desirous" to take it. If he did entertain such objections at that time, why had he not stated them? Why had he not brought them under the consideration of Parliament, in order to obtain a modification of them? Considering the reasons which had induced that House, and still more the other House of Parliament, to accede to the great measure of relief in 1829, he looked upon it as a most unfortunate circumstance, that difficulties should now be found in the securities which no one dreamt of while the Bill was under dis-
* Hansard (new series), xxi, p. 1401.

33
cussion. With respect to the Oath of Supremacy taken by Protestants, denying to any foreign prince, prelate, or potentate, ecclesiastical authority within this realm, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be well aware that the purport of that oath had been the subject of much controversy. He must also be aware, that there was a period in the history of this country, when Roman Catholics themselves did not object to take that oath. They did not, of course, thereby mean to deny to the Pope a purely spiritual authority over those who were willing to recognize it. All that they disclaimed, was, an authority sanctioned by law, a power to enforce any ecclesiastic jurisdiction or claim of superiority, but construed the oath to mean the negation of any power in the Pope to enforce his wishes by legal process. He was unwilling to involve the House in any theological controversy; but he rested his objection to this discussion, partly on the grounds of feeling, and partly on principle. Considering that no practical grievance had arisen from this oath,—recollecting all that passed in 1829, when so many persons were reconciled to Catholic emancipation, under the impression that these oaths gave to the state some degree of security—and fearing that now to break faith with them would have the effect of checking all disposition in future to liberal concession, he must resist the disturbance of a settlement solemnly made only five years back.
Dr. Lushingtondid not rise to enter into any discussion as to the best form in which the question might be brought on, but to state his opinion that no oath whatever ought to be required from any Member of that House. He had never yet been able to discover that the administering of oaths had been attended with benefit. On referring to the transactions of past times, however apparently solemn the obligation of oaths might have been made, whenever an inducement sufficiently strong occurred, and the circumstances of the time were favourable, there had been no hesitation in violating the oaths, or in depriving the persons who imposed them of whatever security they expected to derive from them. He had many other reasons to advance against the existing system. In the first place, whatever might have been the case with an unreformed Parliament, he was opposed to any restrictions upon the free choice of the people of England in a Re-
34
formed Parliament. The people were competent to select persons to guard their interests, without requiring any additional guard provided by Parliament. They would now select those individuals whose political principles, or known character; and the esteem which the manner in which they had discharged all the duties of life had gained for them from their fellow-countrymen, were sufficient guarantees of their fitness to be intrusted with the great duty of legislating for the kingdom, without having oaths imposed upon them. There was no reason why a man should come fettered in that House upon any subject whatever. Be he Protestant, Dissenter, or Roman Catholic, there was no reason why his lips should be sealed up—why he should be precluded from openly and fearlessly declaring the truth. Why seek to suppress that? Why bar free discussion? If they had confidence in their principles both of Church and State, what reason was there to shut out the light of full and free inquiry? The right hon. Baronet said, that in 1829, when the Roman Catholic Relief Bill passed, a sort of understood compromise was entered into with the people, that certain oaths should be taken by Roman Catholics on their admission to that House. He remembered well what occurred upon that occasion. They who uniformly advocated the emancipation of the Roman Catholics were told, "Be content with what is offered to you; do not oppose the securities proposed, or you risk the success of the measure." He recollected with bitter, with, he might say, deeply-wounded, feelings the treatment of the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland,—how shamefully they were sacrificed to pitiful jealousy, merely for doing their duty to their God and their conscience. Under such circumstances, he and those with whom he acted abstained from pressing many points. The times were greatly changed since then. Sentiments might now be freely expressed and opinions advanced with some chance of success which would not then be listened to. The light of truth and the voice of freedom had gone forth, and their guidance must now be followed. These oaths were framed with a leaning to one set of men in some points, and with the view of conciliating the prejudices of another set in other points. It was most unwise and inexpedient to retain oaths that admitted of diversified interpretation, which some might take in one sense,

35
and some in another. Was this the sort of example they should set to the people of England? Was this the way to gain respect to the solemnities and sanctity of an oath? Nothing tended more to desecrate the sanctity of an oath, and to render it almost contemptible, than the manner in which a sort of systematic swearing pervaded the whole of their institutions. It contributed much to endanger both life and property. A man's fitness for place should rest upon his known honour, integrity, and character, and not to be made dependent upon oaths. More had been done during the last five years for the improvement of the state of society and towards the removal of erroneous opinions than for the previous twenty-five years. The sooner, then, they got rid of such oaths as were now enforced in many cases the better, and by such a course the more likely would they be to retain the good opinion of the people. From the increased influence of the people of England, from their great intelligence and extended knowledge, he had no hesitation in saying, that at the present time he was the wisest statesman who was the most bold and courageous in his course. He was the wisest statesman who feared not the progress of knowledge or the improvement that was daily taking place around him—he who, influenced by the undeviating principles of truth anti justice, made inquiries into those subjects which he considered for the benefit of society, and who made up his mind to bring forward remedial measures, that would sweep away the folly and ignorance that they saw around them. The statesman that commenced as he ought, and considered that nothing had been done whilst anything remained to be done, would obtain the confidence and support of the people of England. These were his honest opinions, and he trusted that ere long they would generally prevail in the reformed House of Commons. With respect to the proposition before the House, he must say with his noble friend, that the best plan was to agitate it in the House itself.
Sir Robert Inglisfelt surprised at what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but he was still more surprised at the speech that had been delivered by the hon. and learned Judge who had just sat down. His hon. and learned friend had talked of sweeping away the folly and ignorance of past ages. To
36
hear the hon. and learned Judge say this—recollecting the man who had preceded him in office within the last five-and twenty years,—to hear this from the hon. and learned Judge, knowing what he was, and knowing he would allow him to say, without any compliment, how deeply, sincerely, and conscientiously his hon. and learned friend felt on all occasions in this House, had been matter of greater surprise to him even then the observations of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed a contemptuous disregard for all who had gone before him. It was not by a contemptuous disregard (on the part of his predecessors) of those who went before them, that the character of that very Court, or of the profession to which the hon. and learned Gentleman belonged, attained its present eminence; nor had it been by any such disregard of practice, principles, or precedents, that the House of Commons had attained its present position with the nation:—it had become great by consistently following principles; it was in practice, by changing only gradually, and of necessity—because change in itself was not beneficial—that the institutions of this country had become what they were. Even by retaining, in many instances, quiet error, rather than unruly truth (speaking only of practical policy) a nation might secure the substantial ends of Government. He was not surprised that the maxim which he had just quoted had not been received by the House with the favour which it deserved, because they had not recognised it as a maxim—not of his, but of one who was immeasurably superior to him—who established the principle, that, in practical politics, it was often better to retain quiet error, than admit unruly truth. He would not detain the House on that part of the subject, but would at once go to the question more immediately before the House. It was distinctly understood, when the measure for admitting the Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament—the passing of which he should never cease to deplore—was under discussion, that the Catholics were not to vote on any subject involving the interests of the Church. He had never, in that House nor out of it, nor since, nor previous to any Roman Catholic having taken a seat in that House, admitted, that the Roman Catholic who took the oath at the Table was at

37
liberty to interfere with any measure touching the temporalities of the Church. By that opinion he was prepared to stand or fall. The hon. and learned member for Dublin might interfere where he had the power, but in that House he at once and distinctly told the hon. and learned Member, that he was bound by the oath he had taken not to interfere with the Church. He was a Member of that House when the measure was passed under which the Roman Catholics were enabled to sit in Parliament; and he would tell the hon. and learned Member,—he was bound to tell him,—if the animus imponentis of the Parliament which passed the Relief Bill were to be regarded, that the hon. and learned Member was entirely precluded from interfering with the temporalities of the Church, after the oath he had taken. The words were:—'I do solemnly swear, that I will preserve, to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, us established by law:—And I do hereby disclaim; disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm:—And I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege which I am, or may become, entitled to, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or Protestant Government, in the United Kingdom.' [Mr. O'Connell: Hear! hear!] if the hon. and learned Member who was cheering him said, that the meaning of that oath was, that he would support, or rather would not subvert, anything which might be by law hereafter established, (he, himself; not concurring in such measure so as to change anything which now is) he did not, so far, deny that the hon. and learned Member was right. He did not require him to do more than support what he found established by law; but he did hold the hon. and learned Member bound, by the terms of his oath, not to concur in any measure which had for its object the effecting of any change in property which was established by law when he took that oath. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, what was meant by a Protestant Government? Grieving, as he should never cease to grieve, at the measure which had placed the hon. and learned Member in that. House, he felt, that so long as the hon. and learned Member and those who
38
agreed with him in religious opinions, took—as they were bound to take—that oath, he regarded it, pro tanto, as a security for his Church. So long as the hon. and learned Member did that, and so long as such a protection as the Coronation Oath was afforded to the Protestant Establishment of the country,—so long as the House claimed that oath to guard the National Church,—his answer would be, that the present was a Protestant Government—that the King was essentially Protestant. He would not confine himself to the Executive; but the King had stated, that he would maintain the Protestant religion, and upon that he would rely, and enter his strongest protest upon what had been advanced to the contrary in the House that evening. It had been said, that, after so much had been conceded, and after Catholics had been allowed to take their seats in that House, that it was unnecessary to retain the present oaths. He, however, would reply, that, granting that one security had been removed, that was no reason why another should be removed. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, why abjure any princes of the house of Stuart? The answer was so obvious, that it could not have escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was this:—they did not abjure allegiance to any living prince of that House (since there was no prince living to claim it), but they denied the right of the Stuarts, at any time since the Revolution, to have reigned in England. If they did not so renounce the legal rights of the descendants of James 2nd, they should virtually give their sanction to their claims respectively, and might allow a question to be raised in respect to their acts in the intermediate time. By the oath they declared, not merely that those princes had no right to the Throne of England, but they refused to recognise any transfer of property, any grant of any rights by them, and, generally, any of the acts of those who claimed this Throne since the Revolution. With respect to the reference which the hon. and learned Gentleman made to the House of Lords in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth, he was rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman could have asserted that the majority were Roman Catholics; for there were not more than twenty lay Peers sitting in the House of

39
Lords at that time, above the number of Bishops. There was one part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman which he would venture to say, surprised every individual in the House, whether he were Roman Catholic or Protestant. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what was the privilege of sitting in Parliament? Was it for that which the hon. and learned Gentleman now regarded as no privilege, which he repudiated and trampled under his feet in scorn,—was it for that, that those who felt deeply upon the subject in opposition to the hon. and learned Gentleman, acceded to his claims, and the claims of those who thought with him? and was the hon. and learned Gentleman now to turn round upon the House and say, that, in so doing, they only conceded that which was a proper subject for his scorn, and fit matter for his contempt? Was that the return which the hon. and learned Gentleman made to those who, at the sacrifice of their own feelings, consented to admit him into the House? The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman was virtually directed against all oaths. To that argument he gave a more decided negative than was given to it by the noble Lord; believing, as he did, that, without oaths—without a solemn appeal to God—as the history of past times fully proved, there could be no stability or security for any system of society. He could not refrain from saying here, that he felt considerable surprise at one of the statements of the learned Judge. The hon. and learned Judge opposite said, that he regretted that the practice of oath-taking prevailed to an iniquitous extent in England; and that, in many instances, oaths were but mere matters of form; and the persons who took them had no regard to the truth of what they swore. Coming, as these observations did, from his hon. and learned friend, they might almost be considered as coming from the judgment scat. These remarks had given him great pain. Was his hon. and learned friend prepared to get rid of all oaths in the country? Was he prepared to look forward to a state of society in which the sanction of an oath was not considered binding? The declaration that had been made by his hon. and learned friend had nothing directly to do with the subject before the House. He, therefore, hoped that it was merely a
40
careless expression. In conclusion, he must state, that he should vote with the noble Lord, and give his strenuous opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin.
Dr. Lushingtonexplained: He never intended to recommend the abolition of oaths of all descriptions. He merely meant to protest against the unnecessary administration of oaths in that House, and in the country, the practice of which tended to destroy their effect when administered in Courts of Justice.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyconcurred entirely in the opinion just laid down by his hon. and learned friend (Dr. Lushington); and was glad that his hon. and learned friend had risen to give an explanation. He agreed that, in the multitude and unnecessary multiplication of oaths, there was the greatest danger that a strict observance of those oaths would not be regarded, by which means the strong and general impression as to the security of the obligation of an oath would be diminished. He felt bound to say, however, that he certainly thought that one observation of his hon. and learned friend justified the impression, that he was against the administration of oaths altogether. His hon. and learned friend said, that the doctrines which he had that night advanced would not have been tolerated in an unreformed House of Commons. He wished that some of the doctrines which had been laid down by his hon. and learned friend might never be tolerated or supported in any House of Commons. He (Mr. Stanley) had ever given his cordial and earnest assent to the measures of relief to the Catholics and the Dissenters, which he considered of the greatest importance. He had supported two measures, to which, ever since he had taken part in political transactions, he had considered himself bound and pledged, not by previously-declared opinions; but he felt himself bound by the dictates of his own feelings, and by the convictions of his mind, to get rid of all impositions and checks on the civil rights of those who dissented from the doctrines of the Church of England. Another great measure, to which he considered himself pledged, was one by which the people of England would have the power of checking and influencing the proceedings of the House of Commons. He rejoiced that

41
measures for the attainment of these great objects had received the sanction of the Legislature: and by supporting them he did not consider that he was bound to give up any security to the Established Church of England. Nor did he believe for one moment that, by doing so, the Members of that House were abjuring the bond to support the Protestant Government of the country, on the one hand, or binding themselves to be the slaves of popular caprice on the other. His hon. and learned friend behind him said, that the last five years had seen a wonderful advance in popular feeling upon this subject; and, indeed, it might be his (Mr. Stanley's) misfortune to be left behind by the popular feeling, in consequence of entertaining such opinions as he had then expressed; but he would only observe that, from the first time he had supported the claims of the Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament, he had not changed his political creed, nor his political principles. His views ever were to support the established religion of the Church of England—but at the same time to remove all those restrictions which might be deemed offensive to the feelings or consciences of those dissenting from the Church, and, still more, all restrictions which had been imposed on the civil rights of every class of his Majesty's subjects. Those opinions he had hitherto held, and those opinions he should continue to hold notwithstanding he might be passed, by bolder statesmen and left far behind by his hon. and learned friend, who laid it down as a maxim that he was the wisest statesman who was the boldest statesman; and by the latter expression his hon. and learned friend did not mean he who faithfully and cautiously watched over the best interests of the country and relied upon the sound and strong sense of the people of England; but he was the bold statesman, and therefore, the wiser statesman, who put himself at the head of every show of political agitation and excitement, and taking the lead in every clamour, with a view to quiet public opinion, and, above all, to consider that nothing had been done whilst anything remained to be gained. Such was the bold and therefore wise statesman of his hon. and learned friend. He admitted that a statesman pursuing such a course would be a bold statesman, but he must take the liberty of doubting his wisdom. His hon. and learned friend said, he would
42
run before the popular voice. He would like to know how long his hon. and learned friend would be able to keep a head of it with anything like reason, and with satisfaction to him. Until some wiser politician arose—until some one entertaining more extreme opinions was found—until some man arose who was able to keep himself at the head of the political excitement of the day. Thus, then, the wisest statesman would continue his influence, and would endeavour to lead the public with him. His hon. and learned friend said, that he who went the farthest in yielding to the popular voice pursued the safest course. He (Mr. Stanley) had perfect reliance on the good sense of the people of England; he had confidence in the intelligence and integrity of the country; and it was his firm conviction, that as much public confidence was to be obtained and maintained by opposing steadily and consistently the political clamour of the day, as by following or yielding to public excitement and agitation. He therefore said, that he was the wisest statesman who followed, not the bold course, as it had been called, but who looked to the reflecting reason and the sound sense of the country, not to be influenced by idle clamour, but prepared to meet plausible objections on the one hand and disaffection on the other, but prepared to abide by and defend those opinions and doctrines he sincerely entertained. And not only would such a man be the wisest statesman, but also the most popular statesman in the only sense that popularity was worth obtaining. His hon. friend opposite (Sir R. Inglis) went too far on the other side of the question. His hon. friend was for supporting quiet and mild measures, and he objected to yielding at all to popular or political feelings. There was no one who could entertain a higher regard than he did for his hon. friend, from whom he so often differed on political questions. He was well aware of the mildness and quietness of his hon. friend's disposition, both in public and private, and he knew no one for whom be entertained greater respect; but if there was any point in his character with which he found fault, it was that of his toleration of error for the sake of quiet. It was his firm conviction that a statesman, when satisfied of the truth and justice of a political course, should follow it out firmly, sincerely, and conscientiously—that he should follow out those principles of the

43
truth of which he was convinced, without regard to conflicting circumstances, which might for a time debar his progress in the course he was pursuing, and without regard to the misrepresentations to which he might be exposed. With respect to the importance of upholding the sanctity of an oath, no one could entertain stronger opinions than himself. He did not allude to taking an oath without having any regard to words, or to the obligation imposed, and when the terms of the oath were mere sound without sense, but to a sacred and solemn obligation. He had had some experience as to the manner in which oaths were occasionally administered. Indeed no man could have been present at a contested election without having seen many instances of the gross violation of oaths. On that point he would mention to the House a circumstance that occurred to himself some years ago. He was appointed one of the Commissioners to see that the oath on registering Roman Catholic freeholders was properly administered, and that perjury was not committed. At that time twelve men came up to be registered; they were all ready to swear that they had all the same home, that they were of the same profession, resided in the same house, in the same street, and claimed the right of voting on the same ground. He need not say, that he saw such a proceeding with horror and surprise; and it had, more than anything else, confirmed him in the opinion that it was the duty of the Legislature to get rid of all unnecessary oaths. With respect to the oaths which it had been proposed that night to abolish, he would in the first place observe, that he did take the same view of them as his hon. and learned friend, who said, that he sacrificed his conscientious opinions and feelings when he assented to their being introduced into the Catholic Relief Bill. Now he regarded those oaths as concessions made to those who felt more strongly than he did on the subject. He recollected that his right hon. friend the present Governor of Ceylon, proposed in the Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, that Catholics should be prevented voting in any matters connected with the established religion of the country. That proposition was rejected by the House; and it was not considered that there was any danger in allowing Roman Catholics to vote in any matters, supported as the Church was by the feel-
44
ings, the opinions, and the affections of the great body of the people of England. It could not now be supposed that the people of England were indifferent to the question, aye or no; but still he must say he regretted exceedingly that such a question had been introduced, believing as he did, that it was calculated to raise a cry which once raised, must convulse the country from one end to the other. He did not know why the hon. Members opposite should object to his stating his deliberate opinion, that if any sound reason were furnished for such a cry the whole country would rise up en masse upon the subject. It was the bounden duty of a wise and prudent Government to suppress the agitation of all questions that might lead to raise up religious differences among the people, that could in any way excite Protestant jealousy, or that was at all calculated to cause disunion between Protestants and Roman Catholics, whom he desired to see placed upon an equal and proper footing. He himself had the honour of representing a large county in this country, and he believed that at least one-half the landed property of that country was at the present moment in the possession of persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He knew that every Roman Catholic in that county supported him at the last election; and he was not the least afraid of losing the support of that large, opulent, and respectable body of voters on any future occasion by strenuously upholding the Protestant religion and the Protestant Government of this country. He stated, without the least desire to give offence to any party, without being influenced by religious feelings—for he did not consider this to be a religious question but rather a question of political prudence, that it was his fixed and unalterable determination to support the Protestant Establishment both in Church and State, and to resist any attempt that might be made to endanger it, no matter whether by Roman Catholics, or by any other class or denomination of persons. As far as the Roman Catholics residing in the county he had the honour to represent were concerned, he could assure the House that no intention or desire had ever been manifested on their part that could lead to an inference that they were hostile to the Protestant religion being the religion of the State. On the contrary, they had never shown the least disposition to shrink

45
from the full observance of either the spirit or the letter of this oath, and were as anxious as any other of his Majesty's subjects to preserve inviolate the rights of property as by law established in these realms, and to disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention of subverting the Established Church as settled by law. It was his firm belief that it was not the wish of the Roman Catholics of this country that the Protestant religion or the Protestant Government of these kingdoms should be in any way disturbed; and he felt the strongest persuasion that those Roman Catholics who took this oath did so without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. Although he did not agree with the hon. Baronet opposite, that the Roman Catholic Members of that House had not a right freely to discuss questions relating to the temporalities of the Church, he yet conceived that they were bound in discussing questions relating to the Church, to remember the nature and solemnity of the oath which they had taken, and to abstain from doing anything the tendency of which would be to subvert the Church established by law; that was, to change the religion of the State, or destroy the union which subsisted between Church and State. The Protestant Establishment allowed those who dissented from it the freest and fullest exercise of their religious opinions; and, such being the case, those who entertained doubts or scruples with respect to this oath should state clearly and explicitly their objections to it, or the alterations which they would propose making in its form or substance, in order that the House might judge of the reasonableness of their desire, and see whether it would be prudent to effect any change in it. Those who imagined that its interpretation was either ambiguous or doubtful were bound to pursue this course. His hon. and learned friend on the bench behind him said, that he had objected to the abolition of the 40 s. freeholders; but that he had advocated doing away with the oath. Now, although he (Mr. Stanley) supported Catholic Emancipation, he strenuously resisted the insertion of the clause in the Catholic Relief Bill which was directed against the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He had also objected to the disfranchisement of the 40 s. freeholders, and approved of the plan for paying the Catholic clergy out of the public purse.
46
But, in giving his support to these three important measures, he was actuated only by a desire to do an act of political justice, which, in his conscience, he believed would tend to the ultimate benefit of the State. He would not, he was free to confess, wish to make any sacrifice of his own conscience, and, therefore, he should not like to impose upon others the taking of an oath which they might deem inconsistent with their sense of duty, or repugnant to their consciences. He was far from arguing that all the oaths prescribed to be taken were necessary; but as this oath was part of a solemn compact that was entered into to allay the fears of those who opposed Catholic emancipation, in spite of the unruly oaths that were pressed upon them, he must say, that they would not be justified in abolishing it without they had very good grounds for adopting such a course. For his part he could not agree to any alteration of the oaths now taken, and therefore he could not give his assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin for appointing a Select Committee upon a subject which the House was fully competent to judge of without any such inquiry having taken place. He repeated that the proper course to be pursued was, for those who objected to the oaths to state as minutely as they pleased the grounds of their objections, and then the House would be able to decide whether they should be abolished or amended.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwerthought, that the arguments which the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) had used, had not been fairly treated by the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the other side. It was, he might almost say, ridiculous to require persons to swear that, which, on all hands, was confessed to be either untrue or absurd. He should vote to have such oaths done away with.
Mr. Sheilsaid, it was not a little remarkable, that the oath was so framed, as to leave the party taking it, to put his own construction on it. There was, however, some difference of opinion on the subject; but he contended, that the party taking it alone could determine how far it was obligatory, and how far it was not binding upon him. The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies differed from the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, in thinking that the Roman Ca-

47
tholic Members of the Legislature had no right to interfere in questions relating to the temporalities of the Church; but, although this right was conceded to them by the right hon. Secretary, he forgot to say at what point they should stop, or the limits to which their interference might go. How were they to know when they were to pause, or when they were to go on?
Mr. Secretary Stanley:What he had stated was, that when any question relating to the temporalities of the Church was brought forward, the conduct of the Roman Catholic Gentlemen should be consistent with the oath they had taken to abjure all intention of subverting the Protestant Church as by law established.
Mr. Sheilhad not doubted that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the right to interfere; but what he complained of was, that the right hon. Secretary had omitted to state how far that interference might be carried.
Mr. Secretary Stanley:The words of the oath clearly fixed the interpretation that ought to be given to it. The party taking it, swore that he abjured all intention of subverting the Protestant Church as by law established.
Mr. Sheil:The view which the right hon. Secretary had taken of the terms of the oath was a very narrow one. He must complain of the interruptions which he had already experienced; and said, that the right hon. Secretary had acted, in the present instance, with a species of courtesy and urbanity, which not unfrequently distinguished him, and for which he (Mr. Shed) supposed he was bound to say, he felt grateful and obliged. He denied, that there was any means of ascertaining which was the right or which was the wrong construction of the oath. There was a manifest distinction between the Protestant Religion or the Protestant Government and the temporalities annexed to the Established Church, and on this distinction it was, that Roman Catholics founded their right to interfere with the latter. It was not, however, from Roman Catholics that the right hon. Gentleman had most to apprehend for the safety of the Protestant Church. Without fear of contradiction, he could assert, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had never expressed opinions so unfavourable to that Church, as those which were constantly expressed by Members of that House, and which were to be found in the numerous
48
petitions that poured in from all quarters against it. Let not the right hon. Gentleman be haunted by the horrid fancies with respect to Popery, when he had before his eyes the avowed hostility which the Dissenters had declared against the Church established by law. The hostility of the Dissenters was much more alarming, as far as regarded the safety of the Church, than that to be apprehended from the Roman Catholics. It was only that morning that an hon. and learned Civilian presented a petition from a body of Dissenters, stating the junction of Church and State to be at variance with the true principles of Christianity. The Roman Catholics never, at any time, used such strong language in speaking of the Church.
Mr. Methuensaid, that he had presented several petitions from bodies of Dissenters on the subject of the Established Church; but he denied, that any wish was expressed in them that the union between Church and State should be dissolved.
Mr. Sheilbegged to say, that he did not speak of all Dissenters. A petition had, however, been presented that day from a body of Dissenters, the prayer of which was for a separation such as he had described.
Mr. Methuensaid, that as no petition that he had presented contained such a prayer, the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations could not apply to the Dissenters from whom these petitions had come; and in their name, and on their behalf, he begged to disavow such sentiments.
Mr. Cobbetthad always been as friendly as he possibly could to the Roman Catholics, and because he was so, he regretted to see this Motion brought forward. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington) was mistaken, if he believed that the people of England were insensible or indifferent upon this subject. Let there be an inquiry as to altering the oaths taken by Roman Catholic Members, and his opinion was, that the people of this country would be agitated from one end of the island to the other. The learned Doctor seemed to have changed his opinion on the subject of Roman Catholic oaths; for last year, in the debate on the Address, he called upon Roman Catholic Members to remember the oath which they had taken with respect to the

49
Established Church. Referring to a previous speech in the debate, the learned Doctor said, that, "The hon. and learned Member, (for Dublin) used one expression which struck particularly on his ear—he spoke of destroying the Protestant Church in Ireland. What did the hon. Member mean by that expression. Did he intend to adhere to it?" Then, an explanation being offered by the hon. Member, to the effect that, "when he spoke of interference with the Church, he meant only with its temporalities;" the learned Doctor said, that, "The explanation of the hon. Member was not more satisfactory than his original declaration. However anxious hon. Members might be to correct irregularities, and purify the Church, and no Member was more anxious than he (Dr. Lushington) to effect those objects, yet he had thought that every Member in that House was bound, by a solemn obligation, to uphold the Established Church. He had hoped that the oath taken by the Catholic Members on entering that House, made a deep impression on their minds."* But now the learned Doctor would dispense with oaths altogether. He deprecated any Committee, or the adoption of any measure on the subject, because he knew that the consequence would be, to agitate the people. In allusion to the explanation of the hon. Member opposite, on the subject of the Dissenters, he thought that the hon. Member must know, that numerous petitions had come from the Dissenters for admission into the Universities. To his surprise, Ministers appeared ready to concede the point. He did not say, that he objected to it—but all men knew, that James 2nd lost his Crown for attempting to put a Roman Catholic into Oxford; and now it was rather curious to find Ministers prepared to acquiesce in a measure of a like nature with one which caused James 2nd to be expelled from this country.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonreferred to the measure of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, for doing away with the oaths taken before the Lord Steward, and expressed his objection to all unnecessary oaths, as tending to bring those obligations into contempt. He particularly objected to the Oath of Supremacy, and the Oath of Abjuration, which latter, Protestants were absurdly called upon to take, while Roman
* Hansard, (third series) xv. p. 426.
50
Catholics, to whom alone its provisions could apply, were absolved from it. If he could learn from the noble Lord (Althorp) that it was the intention of Ministers to take up this important question, he would decline to vote with the hon. and learned member for Dublin; but if he received no such intimation, he certainly would vote for a Committee. He strongly objected to the present multiplication of unnecessary oaths, and was quite ready to do away with all political oaths whatsoever, except the Oath of Allegiance.
Mr. O'Dwyerthought, that the conduct of the Roman Catholic Members of that House had justly entitled them to call for the abolition of this oath. He thought it expedient that the question should be set at rest. He was willing to concur in a declaratory resolution which should relieve Roman Catholic Members from the imputation (however courteously expressed) of forgetting the obligations imposed upon them by their oaths. He should, of course, vote for granting the Committee.
Mr. Lambertsaid, that it was preposterous for them to call on a man to swear that which their reason told them was absurd. Every oath should be clear and definite in its interpretation; but that was not the case in this instance. For his part he bore no ill-will to the Protestant Church, nor did he wish to see it subverted. On the contrary, so long as a State religion was necessary in the country he devoutly wished it to be Protestant. All he desired was, that the objectionable part of this oath should be erased from it, and he thought that if it were to run thus—"I do promise and swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, and that I will uphold and support the constitution of the country as by law established"—it would not only be satisfactory, but answer all the purposes which could render an oath useful or desirable.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonwas glad that the question of the oath was likely to be set at rest. At present such was the dubious state in which Roman Catholics were placed, that they were taunted with a construction of the oath inconsistent with their principles, when they voted on certain questions. For instance, on the subject of Irish Church temporalities, or any other subject connected with the Established Church, they were placed in a disagreeable and painful situation. He hoped, if the question could not be settled

51
now on account of an informality in the a manner in which it was brought forward, that the hon. and learned Member would I again bring it forward, before any of the questions to be mooted regarding the Church of England were brought before the House. Such were his feelings on this point, that if any motion such as that for the abolition of tithes, of which the hon. and learned Member had given notice, were brought forward before the question was settled, he would consider it his duty to move the previous question.
Mr. O'Reillyexpressed his regret that this question was mooted by any Catholic Member of this House, and he must protest against the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. For his own part he had felt no hardship in taking the oath, and regretted to hear that there was a possibility of the cry of "No Popery" being again raised. He trusted, however, to the liberal feeling of Englishmen, to counteract any insidious attempt of the kind.
Mr. Philip Howardthought the hon. and learned member for Dublin had exercised a very sound discretion in bringing the question before the House. When he compared the hon. and learned Member's definition of the obligations of the oath, with that of other Members professing the same religious faith, and when he saw good and honourable men of different religious principles, such as the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, differing in their opinions as to the manner in which their consciences were bound by the oath, he found in those facts sufficient reason for believing that the sooner they were relieved from the oath the better. If the question had been put upon the ground of political expediency, he should have agreed with the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, that it had better not have been brought forward; but when it was declared to affect the sanctity of the obligations imposed by an oath, he thought it a ground winch demanded their attention. Belonging to one of those families which for centuries had been debarred by a very few words in an oath from the honour of a seat in that House, he thought that the oaths taken in the House ought not to be left subject to any doubt as to their strict meaning and force.
Mr. Leech, knew that a very strong feeling existed on this subject in England,
52
and in his opinion, the agitation of the question would be injurious both in England and in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connell, in reply, said, he could not think that the mooting of this question could possibly excite any warmth of feeling, or probably any feeling at all, out of that House. He was not the person to whom the hon. and learned Member replied on the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Oldham. In reference to the statement of the right hon. member for Tamworth, to the effect that he made a speech at the Bar of the House in 1829, claiming to sit, and offering to take the oaths which he now wished to get rid of, he replied, that he not only offered to take the oath, but had taken it; but that since taking it, a controversy had arisen as to its meaning, which gave him uneasiness, from which he wished to be relieved by a distinct definition of the intent and meaning of the oath in one way or the other. The hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, had indulged in some self-gratulation at the alleged fulfilment of some prophecy of his as to the admission of Catholics into the House, and had candidly lamented that he saw him (Mr. O'Connell) there. He would not return the compliment; for as long as any question involving the principles of religious liberty, or any liberal and enlightened policy remained to be discussed, he desired no other adversary than the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet had thought it necessary to revive the whole question of the Coronation Oath, and the result of his argument upon it went to this, that the King had committed perjury. Now he was willing to be put in the same category of perjurers with his present Majesty and his deceased brother, and, if they had been guilty of perjury, certainly he had also. Neither had been guilty, or both. The speech of the right hon. Secretary, had treated the House to a speech the first part of which was eminently Conservative, and the last as highly theological. He had given them, however, a pretty good specimen of the necessity of some change in these matters by stating that he had witnessed the commission of perjury by eleven Roman Catholics; but according to his own account he, as a Magistrate, must have participated in the perjury by administering the oath.
Mr. Secretary Stanleybegged to ex-

53
plain, that he had done no such thing as what the hon. and learned Gentleman was attributing to him. In the case to which he had alluded, when the oath was to be administered, the book was put into the hands of all the party at once, when one of them pronounced the words, "I, John Smith, of No. 11, Church-street, &c." According to the oath so taken, there would have been twelve John Smiths, of No. 11, Church-street. Of course he, in administering the oath, did not pursue the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he did, but immediately stopped the proceeding, and caused the oath to be properly administered.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it appeared, then, that there was no oath taken, and therefore no perjury in the case at all. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had admitted that a part of an Act of Parliament had been levelled at him (Mr. O'Connell) and he wished the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had not gone further, and that he had not also had a paragraph of a King's Speech levelled at him. He contended, however, that under this clause of the Act, all the Roman Catholics were made to swear was, that they would not subvert the Established Church. They did not swear to continue it. They did not swear to maintain tithes and oblations. Surely religion was not a thing of pounds, shillings, and pence, and it was the established religion which they were not to subvert. There were two churches in Ireland, one established by law, the other by the people. Would the Protestant be less an Established Church if deprived of its temporalities? Having the provisions of his oath before him, he would not have voted on the question whether there should be ten or twenty bishops—he would not have voted to abolish the order of bishops, or to alter the thirty-nine articles; but the Church Temporalities involved a different question. With regard, however, to temporal property given to them by an Act of Parliament, he felt himself as much at liberty to deal as any other Member of the Legislature. The noble Lord opposite had assumed that the appointment of a Committee upon this subject, might be open to objection in point of form, and therefore he (Mr. O'Connell) could not think that with propriety he could divide the House, though he begged it to be understood, that he by no means abandoned the question. It was a subject
54
which must be set at rest, and was not, as had been urged, a question of contract or compact, for none had been entered into; but, on the contrary, the right in this respect had ever been insisted upon. Though there had been three constructions put upon the oaths now prescribed to be taken, there was only one of them in which he could concur. He should persevere in bringing the subject before the House, with a view to ascertain whether the present oaths, religious oaths, taken in the House ought to be continued; and next, if they were, whether such a declaration could not be framed for the Protestant as well as Catholic, as would remove the existing feeling that hon. Members were required to swear to an absurdity. Under these circumstances he would beg leave to withdraw his Motion, and give notice that in Committee on the Bill of the hon. member for Lancashire, he should move a clause for removing all test oaths in that House as well as in other places. If he failed in that he should move a distinct resolution upon the subject.
The Motion was withdrawn.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Sir Andrew Agnewthen rose to move, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the better observance of the Lord's day. As the subject was not new to the House, he should not feel it necessary to enter into any detail of the measure he sought to introduce. He regretted that after so many petitions had been presented last year, when the feeling of the country had been so unequivocally expressed, it should have devolved upon so humble an individual as himself to bring forward so important a subject. It world be almost presumption in him to dictate all that was necessary to be introduced in such a legislative provision, and he should submit a Bill containing such regulations as to him appeared desirable to the House, and then call at a subsequent stage upon the united wisdom of the House to devise the best means of successfully carrying into effect an object so much desired by so numerous a body of petitioners as had addressed the House upon the subject. He had thought it his duty so to arrange the clauses of the Bill, that hon. Members could by their votes in Committee upon it exclude such as they might deem fit, without material deterioration to the

55
general effects to be anticipated from the measure. Without further entering more particularly into the details of the Bill he sought to introduce, he should be happy to hear any suggestions that might occur to hon. Members, but should reserve any further observations until some expression of sentiment on the subject should be afforded to the House. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. John P. B. Chichesterseconded the Motion, but he would not pledge himself to the support of the Bill, if its provisions were at all similar to those of the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet last year, though, in promoting a measure for the better observance of the Sabbath, he was acting in accordance with the wishes of all his constituents.
Mr. Potterhoped, that the hon. Baronet, the member for Wigton, in asking for leave to bring in a Bill upon this subject, did not wish the House to suppose that his present measure was anything like that which had been introduced last year. On a former occasion, the hon. Baronet had made no declaration to the House as to the provisions of the Bill, neither had he, in the present instance; and, therefore, he (Mr. Potter) had a right to assume, that no security was afforded that a similar measure would not be again brought forward. He held in his hand the Bill which had last year been submitted to the Legislature by the hon. Baronet, the very first clause of which would, by closing bakers' shops, lead, in a great many districts, to a still greater desecration of the Sabbath than at present. The former Bill also went to forbid buying or selling any commodity on a Sunday; now, he (Mr. Potter) was prepared to contend, that such traffic could not entirely be put down. At the time the Bill introduced last Session by the hon. Baronet was under discussion, he had made a point of visiting, on Sunday mornings, various parts of the City, and had ascertained that it was utterly impossible for many respectable classes otherwise to purchase the meat necessary for the consumption of themselves and their families, if they would have their food fit for that day's use. In some instances, he had followed the poor purchasers to their rooms, and he was the more satisfied that, if any meat was exposed from one day to the next to such a tainted atmosphere as pervaded many of the apartments he had
56
visited, it would be wholly unfit for use on the following morning. The Bill then went on to declare as nuisances public lecturing, debating, or news-rooms; and next, that no vehicle should commence a journey on Sunday. These were all interferences with the rational amusements of the people, and the latter proviso would prevent the closely-confined and industrious shopkeeper of this and other cities from the enjoyment of the fresh airs of Greenwich, Richmond, Windsor, and other similar vicinities. By such an interference, the public health would suffer, and serious consequences would inevitably follow. He deplored the interference with the innocent recreations of the people five or six years ago, by putting down several of the fairs in the Metropolitan districts, and he was of opinion, that a Bill, such as had been proposed by the hon. Baronet last year, so far from promoting the advancement and best interests of religion, would be productive of a contrary effect; and he should, by his negative on the present occasion, oppose the introduction again of such a Bill into the House.
Lord Morpethhoped the hon. Baronet, the member for Wigton, would, in the event of the House acceding to his Motion, evince more pliability of materials, and a more distinct regard to his prospects of success, than had been exhibited in the Bill brought forward during the last Session of Parliament. He (Lord Morpeth) only acted in accordance with his own feelings, and those of a great body of his constituents, when, by his vote, he afforded the hon. Baronet an opportunity of introducing a Bill which should give to the labourer of this country that relaxation which God and man intended for him. To this point he limited his support of the Motion until he was made fully acquainted with the provisions of the measure.
Colonel Woodsaid, there were several objectionable details in the hon. Baronet's Bill of last year; but, at the same time, he must say, that it was the general wish of the middling and upper classes of society that some legislative measure should be adopted by the House to ensure the better observance of the Sabbath. He was aware it was a difficult thing to legislate on such a subject. His own impression was, that a great deal more might be done by example on the part of the hon. Members of that House, than by any Act of Parliament they could pass on the sub-

57
ject. He would, however, vote for the introduction of the Bill; and if the House were pleased to allow it to be read a first and second time, he thought the best course for the hon. Baronet would be to refer it to a Committee up-stairs, when they would be able to ascertain how the Sabbath was spent, and what parts of the Bill might admit of beneficial alteration. He would be the last man in that House to interfere unnecessarily with the amusements of the people—they needed amusements and recreations—but, at the same time, it was necessary to prevent the profanation of the Sabbath.
Sir Robert Ingliscould not but think, that though the hon. Baronet, the member for Wigton, had stated that the Bill he now sought to introduce was very much the same as that brought forward last Session; it was not regular for the hon. member for Wigan to prejudice the House against the measure by entering into a discussion of the details of the Bill already disposed of. With regard to the statement urged by the hon. member for Wigan as to Sunday baking, he must remind the hon. Member, that upwards of 7,000 journeymen bakers of the city of London had, by their petition, sought the protection of the House from Sunday trading. That protection they had a right to claim; but, as to the other points embraced by the proposed Bill—namely, the innocent recreations and amusements of the people—he thought, with the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Wood), that more could be done by example than legislation. If the proposed Bill were, in substance, anything like that introduced last year, it would only give force to enactments now in existence, though practically inoperative; but when he remembered, that the number of petitioners praying for some legislation upon this subject amounted to not less than 277,000, he should give his support to the present Motion.
Mr. Littleton, without wishing to be understood as approving of the details of the Bill, would vote for its admission, as he conceived the law, as it at present existed for the observance of the Sabbath, required alteration. He admitted, that the example of hon. Members and others would, in such a case, have greater force than legislation. One of the greatest instances of Sabbath profanation was the markets held in so many places on the morning of that day. What, he would ask
58
hon. Members, was the cause of those Sabbath morning markets? It arose from the circumstance of the masters of working people paying them their wages at so late an hour on the Saturday night as to render it impossible for them to purchase the articles they required until the following morning. He thought something ought to be done to get this arrangement altered. It appeared to him that another day than Saturday ought to be appointed for masters paying their workmen their wages. In several large towns in the country, masters had come to an understanding among themselves, to depart from the practice of paying their workmen on Saturdays, and the change had been attended with the best effects. He thought it his duty to say thus much, as it was only by such means as he had referred to, that relief could be afforded.
Colonel Evanswould support the present Motion, though, if the Bill, when introduced, should be found at all like that of last Session, it would meet with his most decided opposition. He concurred in the sentiment, that wages should be paid earlier in the week than Saturday, and he would suggest the propriety of some provision being introduced into the Bill against those payments being made in public-houses.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that in most of the agricultural districts, the farmer had to depend upon the produce of the sale of his goods in the Saturday markets for the payment of the wages of his labourers; so that any alteration in this respect would be so far disadvantageous. There were many practical points to which the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the present Motion might turn his attention; but, if he attempted to bring in a Bill at all like that of last year, he was satisfied that it could not, by any possibility, be carried.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that, since the hon. Baronet had not thought fit to give any explanation of the provisions of the Bill he now asked the permission of the Mouse to bring in, the hon. member for Wigan was, perhaps, justified in dealing as he had done with the Bill of last year. He, however, hoped the hon. member for Wigan would not divide the House at the present stage, but would allow the hon. Baronet to try his hand a second time. For one, he (Mr. Warburton) should not oppose him.
Mr. Robinsonhad no objection to the introduction of the Bill, which, if it could be shown to be at all calculated to advance the interests of religion, should have his support. He should, however, watch closely that its provisions were impartial in their application to all classes of the community, and that they did not interfere with the innocent enjoyments of the labouring portion of his Majesty's subjects.
Mr. Roebuckcould not think there existed any necessity for legislation on this subject, when it could not be denied that the observance of the Sabbath was now much more decorous than at any former period. If they were now to legislate on this subject, he would ask the hon. Baronet to take care how he applied his legislation. Let the hon. Baronet take care to legislate impartially—to commence with the pastimes of the rich, and not with those of the poor man. Let him not stop the stage coach, which was the poor man's vehicle, and pass the travelling carriage of the rich man—let him, instead of stopping the omnibus, interfere with the chariot; rather than stop the steam-boats, let him lay an embargo on the pleasure-yacht, and stop the private parties of the wealthy; and instead of preventing the labourer enjoying the recreation of the open fields in the vicinity of the metropolis, let him stop up Hyde-park. If the Bill were impartial, and meant any thing, it meant this. The 500 half-choked citizens, who embarked upon a steam-boat in the river Thames, were not guilty, by 10,000 degrees, of so great a desecration of the Sabbath, as he (Mr. Roebuck) had witnessed in one day in Hyde-park. He hoped the Bill would enforce strict regulations with reference to the rich, and, if so, it should have his support.
Mr. Richardssaid, the numerous petitions which had been presented during the last and present Session, manifested a strong feeling in the public mind in favour of some legislation on this subject, and the Motion should, therefore, have his support.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that, from all he had yet heard, there was no difference between the Bill of last year and that which was now sought to be introduced. He thought that, as the question had been disposed of last Session, it was too much again to ask the House to deliberate upon the same measure upon which the hon. Baronet had already failed. The House was, at least, entitled to have been in-
60
formed of some of the details of the proposed measure, before it should consent to the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Hardyreminded the hon. Member who had just sat down, that the second reading of the Bill of last Session was only lost by a majority of six, in a House consisting of 160 Members, and that, too, at a late hour of the night, and an advanced period of the Session. That circumstance was alone amply sufficient to justify the hon. Baronet in persevering with the Bill, which he (Mr. Hardy) hoped would secure full protection to the journeymen bakers of London and every other class of artizans in the country. He should give his support to the Motion.
Mr. Peasewas the last man who could ever be induced to think that a country could be made religious by an Act of Parliament; but he had received such communications from almost every town in the county with which he was connected on this subject, that he should consider it his duty to give his best assistance towards getting the proposed Bill into Committee, where he should hope to get rid of those imperfections which the Bill of last year (and he was bound to believe the present Bill) contained, and to lead by such amendments as might appear desirable to the promotion of good order, morality, and religion, in this country. But he thought, that his hon. friend was not bound to show that this particular Bill would produce all the results hoped for. He should vote for the introduction of the Bill, reserving to himself the liberty of proposing any alterations he might think necessary when it was in Committee.
Mr. Hudsonsaid, the hon. Baronet opposite was called on to state whether the Bill which he had then brought before the House was the same as, or different from, that of last Session; and it was contended that he was bound to show that before the House could accede to his Motion. But the hon. Baronet was not called on to enter at large into the nature and provisions of the Bill in that stage. The real question before the House was, whether it was desirable at all to bring in a Bill for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. He thought it was. He would venture to say, that no Member would vote against the introduction of such a Bill, if he was not prepared to show that it was unnecessary. He would vote for bringing in the Bill, but would reserve to himself the privilege of

61
voting against any of its provisions that he considered objectionable.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonhoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite was not serious in his opposition to the introduction of this Bill. There was a strong and general feeling abroad, that some improvement in the observance of the Sabbath was necessary, and if the public voice were to be regarded, the house would show, that they thought there was some room for improvement, and some necessity for legislation. In the metropolis, there were some abuses which ought to be put down, and some attention ought to be paid to the prayers of the large and respectable portion of their constituents who had addressed the House in favour of some such measure. Hon. Members had said,—and, in this particular, he fully concurred with them,—that they would set their faces against any partial legislation on this subject. But no partiality in favour of the rich against the poor was, he was sure, intended by the provisions of this Bill; and if there were any class of persons interested in the Bill, the poorer orders were the individuals, for some such enactment was peculiarly and emphatically necessary for the labouring population.
Leave was given, and the Bill was brought in; as was also a Bill to amend and explain the Act relative to the Observance of the Sabbath-day in Scotland.

FAIRS AND MARKETS.
Sir Andrew Agnew Sir Andrew Agnew moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Local Authorities to change Saturday and Monday Fairs and Markets to other days.
Mr. Philip Howardopposed the Motion. He was decidedly opposed to granting local authorities such an extent of arbitrary power as would be allowed them under the proposed Bill. To give them the power of changing the fairs and markets of the whole country was giving them a power which they should not possess, and which, if exercised, would spread alarm, discontent, and mischief, through the entire country. In fact, it would interfere with the mercantile transactions of society, and disturb all the commercial and agricultural relations of the kingdom. If it were designed to cure one evil, it would produce many. He could not conceive how that multiplication of Bills could tend to a better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. O'Connellconcurred with the hon. Member who had just spoke, and must
62
really suggest to the hon. Baronet that he was rather premature in thus bringing on his third Bill before he had made sure of the two first, or the first. The House had merely given him leave to introduce the Bills; they said nothing about allowing them to pass. The hon. Baronet, while he was about it, seemed determined to cut the working part of the week short enough, or rather too short; for no sooner had the House allowed him so far to have his way about his Sunday Bill, than he set to work upon Saturdays and Mondays. This was rather too much.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyobserved, that if there was any Bill which contained little or nothing objectionable, it was this. It merely gave a power to Magistrates to change the days on which a fair or market might be held, and he saw no mischief that could ensue from depositing this power in their hands.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that great inconvenience would ensue from such a Bill. The town which he had the honour to represent, had its market-day on a Saturday, and one of the great Smithfield market days was held on a Monday. He presumed it was intended by the hon. Baronet to close the manufactories at an early hour on the Saturday in order to allow the artizans to go to market early on the Saturday afternoon, but he thought this object hardly attainable.
Lord Morpethsaid, that as an opposition had been offered to this pacific measure, he felt it his duty to remind the House that he had formerly presented a petition from a large number of the graziers of Skipton, whose prayer was in accordance with the spirit of the Bill proposed to be introduced. He thought that this fact showed that no practical inconvenience would ensue on the enactment of the proposed measure.
Mr. Gisborne'sobjection to this Bill lay against investing Magistrates with so much power. As for the measure itself, it was so exceedingly preposterous, that he should not waste any observations upon it. In almost all county towns the market was held on the Saturday. He hoped the House would not entertain the Motion.
Sir John Wrottesleymaintained, that the effect of the measure sought to be introduced by the hon. Baronet, would be to displace all the subsisting arrangements which related to the times of holding fairs and markets. In the country many small

63
towns depended on their market in a great degree; and if the market-day of any large town, Birmingham for instance, were to be changed from Saturday to some other day in the week, the consequence would be the ruin of the smaller towns in its neighbourhood, whose market-day would thus be fixed for the same day on which Birmingham market was held. As far as his own observation had extended, he thought that a great improvement was visible of late years in the general observance of the Sabbath. But if, in order more effectually to guard against the profanation of it, Saturday and Monday were to be taken out of the list of market-days, all existing arrangements would be completely deranged, and the greatest confusion created.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that if leave were given to bring in the Bill, that would not pledge the House to the provisions of it more than the House was pledged to the provisions of the former Bill. It was better to let all the Bills be brought in, that the House might see the whole plan. The present Bill might be considered one of the wings of the previous Bill. He (Sir R. Peel) by voting for the Motion was not pledged to the provisions of the Bill; but if they rejected the present Bill, it would imply ipso facto that they admitted the principle of the other Bills.
The House divided—Ayes 137; Noes 181: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Astley, Sir Jacob

Clive, Hon. R.

Attwood, M.

Curteis, H. B.

Baines, E.

Curteis, G. B.

Bewes, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bell, M.

Dugdale, W. S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Duncannon, Viscount

Bentinck, Lord G.

Dundas, Captain

Blandford, Marq. of

Dunlop, Captain

Blaney, Hon. C.

Eastnor, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Browne, J.

Evans, W.

Buxton, T. F.

Ewing, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Fancourt, Major

Burton, H.

Fenton, J.

Burdett, Sir F.

Fergusson, R. C.

Bruce, C. C. L.

Fielden, W.

Buller, E.

Foley, T. H.

Campbell, Sir H.

Folkes, Sir W.

Calvert, N.

Forster, C. S.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Cavendish, Lord

Gaskell, D.

Chapman, A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Christmas, W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Corry, Hon. H.

Grosvenor, Earl

Conolly, Colonel

Grosvenor, Lord R.

64

Glynne, Sir S.

Peter, W.

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Pigot, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Poulter, J.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Pringle, R.

Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Handley, B.

Richards, J.

Halse, J.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Halcombe, J.

Ross, C.

Heathcote, G. J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hardy, J.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Hughes, W. H.

Shaw, F.

Halford, H.

Smith, Hon. R.

Hoskins, K.

Sheppard, T.

Handley, W. F.

Simeon, Sir R.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Smith, R. V.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Stanley, E.

Johnstone, Sir J. V.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E.

Johnston, A.

Steuart, R.

Inglis, Sir R.

Stewart, E.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Keppel, Hon. G.

Stewart, J.

Lambton, H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Langdale, Hon. C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Lincoln, Earl of

Tooke, W.

Lister, E. C.

Tower, C. R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Trevor, Hon. G. R.

Lennox, Lord A.

Todd, R.

Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Madox, J.

Vernon, Hon. G. S.

Maxwell, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Walter, J.

Marryat, J.

Waterpark, Lord

Miles, W.

Watkins, J. L.

Marsland, T.

Whitmore, T. C.

Meynell, Captain

Williams, W. A.

Neeld, J.

Wilks, J.

Neale, Sir H.

Wilbraham, G.

North, F.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Oliphant, J.

Winnington, Sir T.

Patten, J. W.

Whalley, Sir S.

Paget, F.

Wood, Colonel

Pease, Joseph

Pinney, W.

TELLERS.

Peel, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Agnew, Sir A.

Penleaze, J.

Hodgson, J.

DOWN AND RAPHOE.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the subject which he was anxious to bring under the consideration of the House, was one upon which it would not be necessary for him to detain them for many minutes; and if they would give him their attention, he was sure no objection would be made to the adoption of his proposition. His object was, to propose an Address to the Crown, praying his Majesty to give effect to the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Ireland), with respect to the deanery of Down and Raphoe, whose Report had been before the House now for the space of nearly three years. The present subject was one upon which he felt a good deal of anxiety, but upon which he should, never-

65
theless, not have troubled the House if he did not feel it to be a duty which he owed as well to his own character as to the Church of Ireland. The subject, he could assure the House, was one of very great importance. It involved no less than the giving of incumbents to eleven different parishes; of providing the Protestant residents of these parishes with clergymen to discharge the sacred duties of the ministry. Any Gentleman who sat in the last Parliament must be aware that the general union of parishes in Ireland was a constant subject of regret and of complaint; of regret to those who had at heart the well-being of the Church of Ireland; and of complaint from those who gladly seized upon every topic which was likely to damage the character of that Church in the eyes of the Parliament or of the people. For some years past those who took an interest in the well-being of the Church, were anxious to bring in some effectual measure for the reduction of the number of unions in Ireland; and for his own part when he had the honour of holding office under the present viceroy of that country, he felt it his duty to introduce measures for the dissolution of particular Unions, and he would take that opportunity of stating, that no man could be more anxiously disposed for the accomplishment of such measures than was Lord Wellesley. However, it so happened that when the Duke of Wellington was First Lord of the Treasury, it was deemed proper by Government, in order that no further delay might take place, to institute a general inquiry into the whole subject, rather than proceed with the correction of isolated cases. A Commission was accordingly appointed, composed of prelates, legal officers, and laymen. The Commission was appointed some time in 1830, and having applied themselves diligently to the subject which they were appointed to investigate, they made their Report in the early part of 1831, and in July it was submitted to Parliament. In the Report of that Commission the evils of Unions of parishes were fully recognised, and a mode of remedying those evils was also suggested. One of the principal Unions adverted to, was the deanery of Down, which was composed of six other parishes. The value of this Union was 3,000 l. a-year, and this amount was made up by the abstraction of the tithes of five other parishes. The recommendation in the Report of the
66
Commissioners was to give up to the several incumbents of each parish the amount of its revenue, leaving, by this arrangement, the deanery worth 1,000 l. a-year. That Report had attached to it the signatures of the Lord Chancellor, the Primate, two Bishops, Dr. Radcliffe, and the Master of the Rolls. When he (Mr. Goulburn) reflected upon the state of the clergymen in the Union, the curates who discharged the several duties receiving no more than about 70 l. a-year, he did, he confessed, indulge the confident hope that the recommendation of the Commissioners would be attended to. In this hope he was strengthened when he found that the son of one of the Commissioners was appointed to the vacant deanery; for he could not suppose, that the appointment would have been either made or accepted, unless upon the express condition that the recommendation of the Commissioners was to be carried into effect. And, indeed, that conviction remained firm upon his mind until the year 1832, when he heard that no such agreement had been even implied upon the appointment of the new dean. Upon having been accidentally informed of this, he put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the other side, who replied that he had not been able to devote sufficient attention to the matter to give him the information he desired; but he, at the same time, assured him, that effect should be given to the recommendation of the Commissioners. There, then, the matter rested at that time. At the opening of the ensuing Session he found himself again obliged to put a question to the Government on the subject, and he was informed that in the Temporalities Bill an express provision would be introduced to give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioners. He, however, could not help expressing his disappointment at not finding in the Bill any such provision. However, in a subsequent Bill, which passed in July of last year, the provision was certainly introduced. He should have expected that a recommendation now before the House for three years, would have been at once adopted; however, nine months had been allowed to elapse, and nothing had been as yet done. He, therefore, felt it to be his duty to call upon the House to agree to an Address, humbly praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioners. He

67
wished to avoid any topics that could by possibility involve personal considerations, and he should, therefore, not more particularly allude to this appointment to the deanery of Down. With respect to the deanery of Raphoe, not much inconvenience had as yet arisen; but to avoid that, the recommendation of the Commissioners ought at once to be adopted. There were in the deanery of Down five curates; there was also a very considerable town, with a rapidly increasing population, and every hour which the subject was delayed was a great injury to the Protestant parishioners—in fact, he should say to the whole Church Establishment, and to all the Protestants of the empire. The arrangement might to be carried into effect immediately. If it were even possible that the appointment was made without a stipulation that the recommendation of the Commissioners should be carried into effect, surely if the Government had a communication with the dean, no opposition would be offered upon his part. At all events, he felt it due to the Church of Ireland to move that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, humbly praying his Majesty to give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry, respecting the deaneries of Down and Raphoe, expressed in the Report of 13th July, 1831.
Mr. Secretary Stanley:The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Address that he has made to the House, has so pointedly alluded to me, that I trust my right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, will excuse me if I rise before him to state, in a few words, the reasons upon which I feel myself compelled—though I agree in a great measure with the right hon. Gentleman in the observations that he has made to object to the Address which he now moves. I do not at all impugn the correctness of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made with respect to the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry, whose recommendation I, for one, am very far from undervaluing. I do not deny that the Commissioners, haying prosecuted their inquiries in that part of the country, recommended the extinction of the deaneries of Down and Raphoe; but I was not aware of that fact at the time that the preferment was given to the present dean of Down. The deanery of Raphoe, however, fell vacant at a subsequent period,
68
and it was given to the present incumbent upon the distinct understanding that he was not to consider himself as having any vested right or interest in it in case any alteration should be proposed in Parliament. I think the right hon. Gentleman should have added, in justice to the dean of Down, that upon being informed of the recommendation of the Commissioners, which had been overlooked at the time of his appointment, he distinctly stated his determination not to stand in the way of any alteration that Parliament might think fit to make with respect to the deanery. The right hon. Gentleman has also admitted one fact which ought not to be lost sight of, namely, that at the time that both these deaneries fell vacant there was no legal mode of effecting the object which the Commissioners and the right hon. Gentleman had in view, because the presentation to the several perpetual curacies was in the chapter of the deaneries of Down and Raphoe, and that, therefore, the dissolution could not be effected without some previous arrangement upon that point. In the Church Temporalities Bill of last year, a clause was introduced to remedy that ecclesiastical difficulty, and in future to provide for the appointment to those livings; and when the right hon. Gentleman complains that under that Bill no step has as yet been taken to dissolve the Unions, of which he very justly complains, he should remember that that Bill has very materially altered the value of a great many livings, and I am also informed has very considerably altered the views of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves. But I would not have the House suppose, that there is no measure in contemplation upon the subject—on the contrary, I beg to assure the House that the steps necessary for carrying into effect the separation of the Unions in the case of the two deaneries of Down and Raphoe, are now, and have for some time been, under the consideration of the Privy Council of Ireland, whose consent to the proposed change will be necessary before it can be carried into effect. But the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have stated, that the Church Temporalities Bill of last year has made so great a difference in the incomes of some of the Unions, as to render it absolutely necessary for them, previous to any of these recommendations being acted upon, to reconsider each individual case, and to Report to what an extent the

69
amount of the income has been changed. I saw a statement the other day, whether correct or incorrect I will not pretend to say, because I have not the means of judging, but by which it appears that whereby the dean of Down surrendered a living of upwards of 1,000 l. a-year for the deanery of Down, which is worth 2,800 l. a-year; if the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to be strictly carried into effect without further inquiry, the value of the deanery would not exceed 350 l. a-year. I am sure the House would not wish to deal so hardly and unjustly by any person. The right hon. Gentleman could not, I am sure, be aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves have been the parties who, under the altered circumstances in which the Church Temporalities Bill of last year has placed a great portion of the livings in Ireland, have denied that we should not proceed according to those persons' recommendation, and that the opinion of the Privy Council of Ireland should first be taken. The question at present is before the Privy Council, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is as much the wish of the Government of Ireland, as it is my own wish, and as it can be the wish of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that those deaneries should be so divided as to leave an adequate compensation for the persons who are in possession of the different benefices. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, as to the importance of following up the views of the Commissioners, as far as they can be followed up, under the altered circumstances of the Church in Ireland, and I am prepared to go one step further, and to state that, if at the end of this Session of Parliament no measure should be put into operation for the purpose of dividing those deaneries, I shall, with great pleasure, join with the right hon. Gentleman in addressing the Crown upon the subject. But, at the present moment, as the matter is under the consideration of the Privy Council, and as the very persons who formerly proposed the immediate dissolution of the Unions of parishes, now recommend delay, I think it is only fair that it should now be left to the Privy Council to effect, with as much despatch as is consistent with a clue consideration of the changes that have been made, those objects which the right hon. Gentleman and the Ecclesiastical
70
Commissioners have in view. After this declaration I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to withdraw his Motion for the present, with the full assurance that the views of the Commissioners will not be lost sight of by the Government.
Mr. Ruthvenwas not surprised at the ignorance shown by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) knowing, as he did, the polluted sources from which that right hon. Gentleman derived his information. Every one who knows any thing about the county Down, knows very well the deanery is worth above 3,000 l. a-year; the appointment was one of the grossest jobs ever managed by any man; and the whole circumstances were well worthy of an Irish patriot. In order to show that the system was still continued, he would mention to the House, that, the other day, one of the Commissioners appointed to value the deanery, in order to place it under the Composition Act, was the under-agent to the dean, appointed by the Irish Government, and, no doubt, at the instance of the Chancellor himself, whose patriotic feeling told him, the man who collected the tithes for his son was the most likely person to value them properly.
Colonel Conollyknew it was desired by all parties that an arrangement should be made, and he himself could not understand why it had not been carried into effect sooner. The very incumbents of those deaneries, knowing that the law was hanging over their heads, were anxious for a settlement, and so, he repeated, were all parties. The present state of things conduced very much to their own inconvenience, and to the discredit of the Church. He differed from the right hon. Secretary as to the patronage of the livings attached to the deanery of Raphoe. The incumbent of one of those parishes is of a very advanced age, and the routine of appointing to the benefice, in all probability, will very soon take place. The right hon. Secretary stated, that the right of presentation rested with the chapter. He believed it rested with the dean. This, then, was a point upon which very considerable inconvenience might arise, unless some arrangement were speedily made Therefore, as far as his humble voice could prevail with the Government, he would urge them to the immediate fulfilment of the recommendation of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to allow the incum-

71
bents of the several parishes to come into possession of the tithe with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Littletonsaid, as most of the circumstances to which this Motion related took place prior to his coming into office, he was requested by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, to give way to him, and to allow him to reply to the observations that were made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in submitting his Motion. In point of fact, he had nothing whatever to offer in explanation of what had passed, except with respect to that which had occurred since the passing of the Church Temporalities' Bill. As soon as the Commission was appointed under that Bill, they entered upon the parishes connected with the deanery of Down, to make a return of their incomes. Some obstacles had stood in the way of obtaining these returns; but they were now made, and were last week brought before the Lord-lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland. With respect to Raphoe, the right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted, that there were circumstances which admitted of delay. In that case all the parties had been called upon to make a return of their incomes, and the whole of these returns had been made, except in one instance; and when that was made, the whole would be brought under the consideration of the Council. Under these circumstances he must join with his right hon. colleague, in hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.
Sir Robert Peel:If I know anything of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies—if I have formed a correct estimate of his character, and of the motives and feelings by which his public conduct is influenced—I have no hesitation in saying, that had he been aware of the recommendation of the Commissioners respecting the deanery of Down, he would sooner have cut off his right hand than have signed the appointment of the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to that deanery. I believe it to be impossible, that Gentlemen filling high official situations should not occasionally be betrayed into inadvertencies in the filling up of appointments; and the more assiduously they attend to public business, the more likely are they to act inadvertently upon particular occasions in the disposal of their patronage. If Gentlemen were to be arraigned for this as a crime, there would be an end of
72
all safety for men in office. Well, then, this appointment to the deanery of Down has been made—that act is irrevocable—but the appointment ought to be revoked, in order to give due authority to the Crown, and confidence to the Commission you have appointed for the purpose of effecting many great objects connected with the Established Church in Ireland. I will enumerate certain facts which will convince the House, that this appointment ought to be revoked. I have most implicit confidence in what the right hon. Secretary for Ireland has stated. I hope my right hon. friend will not press his Motion to a division. If he do, however, I shall certainly feel myself called upon to vote with him. But when I have stated a few facts, I am sure the right hon. Secretary will feel, that in order to support the confidence of the Commissioners, and indeed of the country, some other step should be taken which would render it imperative upon the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to dissolve these unions without loss of time. There has long been a general expression of feeling on both sides of the House, that one of the great evils of Ireland is the existence of these unions, devolving upon one individual the duties, or rather the emoluments, of very large districts. Every one, I believe, has felt the necessity of dissolving these unions, and a Commission was in consequence appointed to consider in what way they could best be dissolved. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland was one of those Commissioners who made this report. Acting on these principles, and always supposing that no dissolution of the unions would be effected so as to interfere with the vested rights of existing incumbents, but supposing, generally, if not universally, that the dissolution, if desirable, would be carried into effect at the earliest possible period, consistently with the observance of those rights, the Commissioners have, in the annexed schedules, recorded their opinion, that out of the 110 unions stated to exist, the dissolution of sixty-one is most practicable and fit. The Commissioners, at the same time, most properly protecting the interest of the present incumbents, state, "the Bishop of the diocese is of opinion, that considering the circumstances of the parishes of Down, a dissolution would be practicable, in which the Commissioners concur." Secondly, "the Bishop thinks, that convenience would be likely to result from

73
the dissolution, by placing the Ministers of the several parishes generally in a situation of greater respectability, without diminishing the incomes and dignities of the see." They afterwards state, that the period at which it is proposed to effect the alteration, is the next avoidance of the deanery, that being the earliest period at which the dissolution would be practicable. The existing interest expires, a vacancy takes place, the deanery of a certain union of parishes becomes vacant, and the man placed in that union is the son of one of the Commissioners. Why, there can be but one opinion on this point, when, after such a direct and explicit recommendation, an immediate relative of one of the Commissioners is, on the first avoidance of the living, on the very first vacancy that occurs, to be the individual selected to fill the appointment. The appointment, however, has taken place; it would be very unjust, I dare say, with reference to the respectable individual who fills this office, to recall that appointment, as he has vacated other appointments of equal value; but this I do say, for the sake of supporting the authority of the Crown, by the authority of the Commissioners, let the Crown give this individual the first preferment of an equivalent, value that may become vacant; let them not injure existing interests, but do let them take the first opportunity of carrying into effect a recommendation, the second name appended to which is the name of Lord Plunket.
Mr. Secretary Stanley:I rise for the purpose of very briefly explaining the statement which I have already made to the House, because, in the first place, I cannot conceive that the right hon. Baronet would recommend the displacing of this individual, the appointment, having taken place; and, in the next place, I think the right hon. Baronet has argued this question as if I had contended, which I did not, that it was not intended, and that forthwith, to carry into effect—so far as it could be carried into effect—the recommendation of the Commissioners. I have not got the Report before me; but if the right hon. Baronet will turn to it, he will see, that the recommendation of the Commissioners was for such a dissolution of the union of Down as would give the dean a nett income of 3,100 l. This appointment took place within, I believe, a very few weeks after the making of the
74
Report, which I had not at that time seen. The appointment took place, the living vacated being worth 1,200 l. a-year. If the recommendation of the Commissioners were at this moment carried into effect, I am given to understand that the effect would be to reduce the nett income of the dean to between 380 l. and 400 l. [Mr. Ruthven: No, no.] The hon. Gentleman denies this statement; if the hon. Gentleman will call on me in private to-morrow morning, I shall be happy to show him my authority for making it, and he shall have full liberty of investigating it to the fullest extent. The question now before the Privy Council, who are at this moment considering in what manner they can carry into effect the recommendation of the Commissioners, always bearing in mind that a part of their intention was, that an income of not less than from 1,000 l. to 1,200 l. a-year should be secured to the dean on his having the deanery in the parish of Down. This intention, I have not the least doubt, will be faithfully carried into effect. It is only fair to say, the appointment having been made very shortly after the making of the Report, and before it was perused by me, the dean of Down finding that he had been appointed in opposition to the recommendation of the Commissioners, expressed his readiness to abide by that recommendation, even though by so doing, he incurred a certain loss of income. This would be the result of the recommendation being strictly carried into effect, which, I am sure, neither the House nor the right hon. Baronet would be disposed to advocate. So far, however, as the spirit of the report goes, I can assure the hon. House that it is the full determination of the Irish Government to carry into effect, not only this, but all the other recommendations of the Commissioners.
Mr. Humesaid, it appeared to him that the question was treated by the right hon. Gentleman as if it were merely a money question. Now, he perfectly well remembered, that when an hon. Baronet, not now a Member of this House, introduced his Motion for the appointment o those Commissioners, the great advantage which was dwelt upon as likely to result from their inquiries was this—that the individuals frequenting the different Churches, in the union, would be very much convenienced by having a separate clergyman appointed to each.
Mr. Secretary Stanley:Really the hon. Gentleman does not seem exactly to understand the question. They have a separate clergyman now—there is a dean with a large perferment—a Curate and vicar on small preferments. Now, the object was to effect such a dissolution of the union as should endow each living with the rectorial tithes of its own parishes. Had this been done originally, the Rector and perpetual Curate would have been appointed by an authority over which his Majesty's Government would possess no control.
Mr. Humewas quite aware of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman had just stated. What he was about to observe was, that it was stated as a very important ground for the Motion, that the clergyman officiating in each of the parishes would have each of them, an adequate income, depending on his own efforts, and quite unconnected with any individual holding the monopoly of the rectory. Now, he must say, that this became a question of very serious importance, when after the Commissioners had declared their opinion in favour of a change, one of those Commissioners departed from that recommendation in favour of his own son. It certainly did appear to him, as the right hon. Baronet below him had very truly said, that if ever there was a case in which this House would be justified in interfering with an appointment of this description, it was this. He should very much like to know, who recommended this individual; who proposed to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the promotion of his own son, and whether it was given at his own recommendation? He thought this was just that species of case in which the House ought to have the fullest possible information laid before it. Alter the appointment of this individual by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he really could see no injustice in this House silting as a Court of Equity, agreeing upon an Address to his Majesty, praying him to have justice done in this case, and that the recommendation of the Commissioners, which this House generally is of opinion it would be advantageous to adopt, may not be set aside by any of the parties interested in the question.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, when he first heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he was induced to think that he might have voted with his Majesty's Government, but after the explanation which
76
had been given on this question, he certainly thought that this was one of the most serious cases that had come before Parliament for a long time, not perhaps as to the amount of money involved, but as affecting the character of a public man, and it would very seriously affect his Majesty's Government, if, after all their professions, they attempted to cast a shield over it. He really could see no difference between an eminent stationer procuring for his son a situation in the Stationery Office, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland putting his own son into a situation, which a body of Commissioners, of which he himself was one, declared should not be filled up. He had no hesitation in saying, that he thought such an appointment might be afterwards revoked by the proceedings of that House, and that they should best discharge their duty by expressly showing, that if public men were so led away, such acts of injustice towards the public should meet with their decided reprobation. Some other circumstances of a similar character which had heretofore taken place, relative to the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of his relatives to places of trust and profit, induced him very reluctantly to make these observations. He thought it was highly creditable to the individual appointed, that, when he discovered how the case really stood—he being ignorant of the recommendation of the Commissioners at the time of the appointment—he made the representation he did to the King's Government. He would maintain, however, that this had nothing to do with the merits of the appointment itself; and that they would not do an act of injustice to any one—even to that individual himself—if they decided on the propriety of Addressing the Crown to revoke the appointment. If the right hon. Baronet were to press such a Motion to a division, he certainly should have his (Mr. Robinson's) most hearty support.
Mr. Littletonperhaps might he allowed to suggest, that the House should abstain from expressing a very strong or decided opinion on this case, until it had ascertained the nature of the course taken by the Lord Lieutenant in Council—because the declared opinion might be, that in this case there was nothing to complain of. Whether this would be the case or not, he, of course, was unable to say; but this touch he might state, that he (Mr. Little-

77
ton) had seen a letter, not addressed to him, and partaking somewhat of the nature of a private communication, in which the writer expressed the strongest opinion, that in consequence of the altered circumstances produced by the operation of the clause in the Temporalities' Act, it would be the duty of the Commissioners to revise the whole of their Report. What recommendation they might give under those altered circumstances was another question; but he thought the House should pause before it formed a judgment of a case, the merits of which were not in any way before it.
Colonel Daviessaid, that with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, he begged to remind the House, that this appointment took place long before the passing of the Church Temporalities' Bill. He could not help saying, that in his opinion this was one of the most scandalous cases of abuse that ever came under the consideration of the House. They were told, that the question was under the consideration of the Privy Council. Who was the most important member of that. Privy Council? Why, the Lord Chancellor himself; and thus he was to be constituted as the Judge of his own act. He was very sorry the right hon. Baronet had been induced to withdraw his Motion. He thought the sense of the House ought to be taken upon it; and he had no doubt, that if he pressed it, we would be enabled to carry it.
Mr. Sheilthought that the revision of the emoluments of the deanery, and of all those unions, was suggested, a year ago. Now, what were the facts of this case? The Commissioners made a certain Report; they recommended the dissolution of these unions; an avoidance took place; the Government had cognizance, or ought to have had cognizance, of this fact; the Lord Chancellor was one of the Commissioners; this appointment was made in the name of the Government; and he appointed his own son. Now surely this simple fact was sufficient; there was no complaint—there was no reference to what had been done; and when the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was Secretary for Ireland, did he remonstrate with the Lord Chancellor when he was in office? This occurred three Years ago, and he was Secretary for Ireland for two years during that period. Did the right hon. Gentleman communi-
78
cate with the Lord Chancellor and say, "For God's sake, make some arrangement which will remove your son from this appointment?" Is it not natural to suppose, that this course would have been pursued? It had been said, that the Commissioners recommended that the salary should be 1,000 l. a-year. It was now, he believed 3,000 l. [Mr. Littleton: Oh, no! 2,000 l.] Well then, the facts were clear, and required no comment; and under these circumstances he contended that they had a right to know what course his Majesty's Ministers meant to adopt with reference to the intervention on the part of one of their own Commissioners appointed by themselves who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Mr. Ruthvenwished to remark, that one of the Commissioners appointed to value livings in the southern part of Ireland, was the son of the present holder of the deanery of Down.
Mr. Goulburnmerely rose for the purpose of saying, that he was willing to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was quite confident, after what had passed to-night, and after the general expression of opinion on the part of the House, that the object he had in view in bringing this question forward would be effected, and therefore, without depriving himself of the opportunity of again bringing the question under the consideration of the House, should it be necessary, he thought it would be more becoming in him not to press the matter at present. With reference to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the operation of the Church Temporalities Bill having the effect of altering the Report of the Commissioners, he would only say, that if he had searched for the strongest argument which could be adduced in favour of this Motion, he could have found none of greater weight than that.
Motion withdrawn.

CALL OF THE HOUSE—REPEAL OF THE UNION.
Mr. Spring Rice:In rising to move for a Call of the House on the occasions of the Motions of the 15th and 22nd of April, for an investigation of the Union with Ireland, he had to apologise for the terms in which he had given his notice of Motion; but that circumstance arose from the notices on the look—the one being for the 15th of April, and the next for the 22nd of April, for a Se-

79
lect Committee to inquire into, and to report the means by which the Repeal of the Union might be effected, &c. Now, he wished to know which Motion was to come on?
Mr. O'Dwyer:Both.
Mr. Rice:Then he would move, that this House be called over on both occasions. He knew it was unpopular to move a Call of the House; but he trusted he should stand excused, in resolving, that the call should be enforced on each occasion.
Mr. O'Dwyerhoped the House would be called over. His own Motion stood for the 15th April.
Sir Robert Peelhoped that his right hon. friend would show sufficient confidence in the House, thus far, that if the first Motion to which his notice referred were not carried, there could be no fear for the second.
Mr. Ricesaid, he would not object to suspend the Motion of a Call of the House on a second notice of Motion, at the present moment, as he only wanted to have one full discussion, which he thought would be sufficient. But, he might find that the question fixed for the 15th was abandoned. If, then, the discussion for the 15th was not brought on on that day, he would move a Call of the House for the 22nd.
House ordered to be called over on the 15th of April.

BOROUGH OF WARWICK.
Mr. Halcomberose, pursuant to his notice, to move the appointment of a "Select Committee to take into consideration the evidence already before the House, relative to the borough of Warwick, and to report to the House full particulars respecting the cases of bribery, and the class or description of persons bribed; and whether any treating, and to what extent, by the authority of the candidates or their agents, occurred after the issuing of the writ; and particularly to report whether in the event of disfranchising the parties bribed, or that class of electors to which they belonged, a sound and competent constituency would remain in the borough; and that such Committee be appointed by ballot, two Members being named by the House." The hon. and learned Member adverted to the Report of the Committee to which the case of the borough had been referred, and said, that he had asked the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Ronald C. Ferguson)
80
who was Chairman of the Committee, who it was, by whom the Report of the Committee had been drawn up, but the hon. and gallant Officer had refused to give him any information on the subject. He had heard, however, and he verily believed, that the Report had been drawn up, not by any member of the Committee, but by Mr. Parkes.
Sir Ronald C. Fergusonsaid, that the hon. and learned Member was as ignorant on that point, as he was on all the other matters connected with the question. The Report had been drawn up by a member of the Committee, and was approved by the rest.
Mr. Halcombecontended, that a course ought to be pursued with respect to Warwick, similar to that which the House had adopted with respect to the borough of Carrickfergus; and confidently submitted his Motion to the House.
Motion negatived.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Marine Mutiny. Petitions presented. By Lord KENYON, from Llangendeirne, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Tithes.—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Dumbarton, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath in Scotland.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Marquesses of WESTMINSTER and LANSDOWN, and by Lord POLTIMORE, from a Number of Places,—far Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER and Lord KENYON, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Gargannock, against the present System of Church Patronage (Scotland).