Sitting of 30 May 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Referees on Private Bills, appointed and nominated (List of the Committee); Leeds Bankruptcy Court Committee appointed.
Committee—Roman Catholic Oath * [86]—R.P.
Report—Liverpool Gunpowder Regulation, &c *; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * [132].;
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

REFEREES ON PRIVATE BILLS.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that at the end of last Session it was resolved by the House that a Court of Referees should be appointed for the investigation of Private Bills before those Bills went to a Select Committee. That step had been taken as an experiment, and they had now got so far into the present Session that they were called on to decide whether the system should be made permanent, submitted to further trial, or abolished. He therefore begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Court of Referees on Private Bills.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Court of Referees on Private Bills:"—Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. DODSON, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. LOWE, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Lord ROBERT CECIL, Lord STANLEY, MR. INGHAM, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, Mr. WOODD, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. ENNIS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, and Sir JOHN SHELLEY:—Five to be the quorum.—(Colonel Wilson Patten.)

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL— [BILL 86.]

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. NEWDEGATE:* Sir, on the last occasion on which this Bill was before the House, I was unable, through indisposition, to offer to the House one or two observations, which I trust you will pardon me for now attempting to submit to your consideration. I heard and have carefully
  1052
  read through the only debate which has yet taken place on this measure, and I confess that, with the exception of the able speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, it does not appear to me that any speaker entered into the subject-matter of this Bill with anything like the comprehensiveness which it deserves, or to have given the attention which is requisite to the due understanding of that, which is really a very wide question. It appeared to me that the House was about to proceed, and it still appears to me that the House is proceeding, upon the Motion of an individual Member of the House, and without any previous inquiry, to deal with an essential part of the Act of the 10th of George the Fourth, under the provisions of which Roman Catholics have been admitted to seats in this House, and to various, many of them, high offices in the State. Now, Sir, I regard this Bill as the first attempt which has been sanctioned by the House to make any grave and serious alteration in the compact, and I use the word advisedly, the compact of 1829. I know that attempts have been made to dispute the fact that the measure of 1829 was a compact. Sir, that Act was a complement to the Act of Union, and any man who will take the trouble of searching the records of this House and of the House of Lords will find that that Act was preceded by careful inquiries both in 1825 and 1826, in the latter year especially, and that the whole subject-matter of the relations of Roman Catholics to the Papacy and to the Government of this country were fully investigated. The Act, therefore, which you are now asked to disturb was based upon an elaborate inquiry, though I am sorry to say that the anticipations which were based upon the results of that inquiry have, to a great extent, been falsified by subsequent experience. Still, there was inquiry, grave inquiry, before that Act was passed; and I conceive that it is the duty of this House again to institute an inquiry before it proceeds to infringe that Act. Two Committees have since been appointed to consider the oaths taken by Members of this House. I have looked through the Reports and proceedings of both; one of them sat in 1850 and the other in 1858; but neither of them went into the subject-matter of this particular oath, for it appears to have been assumed, that so strong was the feeling of the House not to per-

  1053
  mit any alteration in this oath, that inquiry would have been useless. And I beg to refer the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and I beg to refer other Members of the House to the proceedings of those Committees, where they will find that, although a careful inquiry was instituted into the subject-matter of the oaths taken by Protestants, which were altered by the Act of 1858, there was no inquiry—at least, no adequate inquiry—into the substance of this oath, or as to the manner in which it ought to be altered, It appears to roe, then, that the House is proceeding carelessly in this matter, and, if I wanted proof of that, I think the notice paper of to-day supplies it. Every one feels that this is a subject which ought to have been dealt with upon the responsibility of the Government, that is, supposing any change to be necessary. The Government invite us to go into Committee on this Bill, yet there is not a single notice on the paper that gives us the slightest indication of the nature of the alterations in the oath, which the Government are disposed to sanction, or of the portions of the Bill which they would wish us to reject. Nevertheless we have had an announcement from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that he is not prepared to go the whole length of the Bill. I feel, therefore, that I am justified in resisting the further progress of the Bill until the Government have done us the grace and favour of acquainting us in some formal manner what course they really mean to adopt, when they get into Committee. The House will forgive me if I endeavour to justify in some measure the assertion I have made, that there is an apparent carelessness in the proceedings in this matter. The object of this Bill has been proposed before in this House. In the year 1857 Mr. Deasy proposed an alteration of the oath taken by Roman Catholics. That proposal was to adopt the oath, which was then suggested for the admission of the Jews, as more convenient for Roman Catholics. And what was the determination manifested by the House on that occasion? What was the decision of the House? On the 15th of April, 1857, there were present in the House 456 Members. Those who objected to the proposal of Mr. Deasy were 373, and those who supported his Motion for an alteration of the oath were 83, so that there was a clear majority of 290 against the alteration of this oath. Again, in the year 1858, it
  1054
  was proposed by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) that an alteration of the oath should be made. I will not go into the particulars; but to a certain extent the object was the same as that of the present Bill, The number present in the House, and who voted on that occasion, were 411 Members; those who opposed the proposal to alter the oath were 373; those who sanctioned the proposal to alter the oath were 66: thus, there was a clear majority against any alteration of 279. Now, we come to the year 1865, and with no apparent change of circumstances to justify an alteration, or rather when many circumstances have occurred that should forbid our tampering with the oath at the present time, occurring not only in this country but throughout the Continent, we find that in a House of 328 Members the second reading of this Bill was carried by a majority of 56. The House will forgive me if I say that this change of opinion does not appear to have been the result of any inquiry that has brought to light circumstances that ^have occurred between the year 1858 and the present year, such as to justify Parliament in making the alterations in the oath that are proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick. And, Sir, I may further be permitted to say that I think this proposal would have come with better grace from any other Member of this House than from one who belongs to the Roman Catholic persuasion. The oath now sought to be disposed of is the record of a compact, of an act of good will on the part of the Protestants of the United Kingdom towards their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. And I think that, after that manifestation of good-will, after the continual removal of everything in the sense of penal legislation which has marked our era, the Roman Catholic Members of this House would have appeared before it with a better grace had they committed their case and this proposal to some Protestant Member of the House, instead of coming here and claiming in their own persons that the engagements under which they have entered and sat in this House should be cancelled—cancelled, and that on their own suggestion. I have said that there are particular circumstances at this time which I think do not invite us to tamper with this oath. Let the House, moreover, remember that one of the bitterest sneers which have been directed against the House for its conduct of late years has been,

  1055
  that the House of Commons conducts itself like a rich man's club; that hon. Members consult their own convenience; that they are anxious to relieve themselves of whatever binds them to inconvenient duties; that, in short, they appear to forget, to a certain extent, the high functions of the House, that it holds a large share of the Imperial power of the country; and that every Member of the House has hitherto entered upon his duties, bound by the obligation of an oath, reciting in the most solemn form the conditions of the allegiance, which, as a free people, we tender to a constitutional Sovereign, Before I go further into the matter of the oath, I wish to show that, in the interim between the year 1858, when the last alteration in the oaths was made, and the present time, there has been a temper manifested among certain Roman Catholic ecclesiastics and others which ought to warn us against relieving their representatives from reciting at that table their abjuration of some of those vicious doctrines which, whether accepted by the great body of the Roman Catholics or not—and, I thank God, I believe they never were accepted by the great body of the Roman Catholics of this country—were in former years, and are still propagated, especially by the Jesuits under the sanction of the Papacy, and have led to repeated attempts upon the lives of Sovereigns, as well as to an attempt to destroy the Legislature, and fostering a spirit which has rendered necessary for long periods the imposition upon the Roman Catholic body of a penal legislation, which could by no other cause have been justified than by the existence of that malignant spirit. When hon. Members tell me that they are insulted, because they are asked to repudiate at that table those vicious doctrines, I say, that all we invite them to do is to assure us that they come here to act in the same spirit as that which influences the great body of the Roman Catholics of Italy, to act in the same spirit as that which influences the great body of the Roman Catholics of France, to act in the same spirit which guided the Roman Catholics of Spain when they rejected from their properties in that country and from the country itself the propagators of those vicious doctrines. For my part I cannot understand how any hon. Member of this House should consider it an insult to be required to declare, upon his entrance into it, that he repudiates doctrines which were at one
  1056
  time repudiated by the Papacy itself; which have been repudiated at different times by every Roman Catholic Government in the world; which have been repudiated by all those members of the Roman Catholic Church whose conduct commends itself to the respect and admiration of Christians throughout the world, to whatever denomination they may belong. I feel, therefore, that I am not desiring to perpetuate an insult. I merely ask the Roman Catholic Members of the House to assure us at the table that they will act in the same sense as their Roman Catholic ancestors, who continually repressed the approaches of this vicious spirit, even in the Roman Catholic times previous to the Reformation; who, when attempts were made upon the life of Queen Elizabeth, petitioned the Pope to withdraw his emissaries, who were bringing them into odium among their fellow-countrymen. I ask them to act in the spirit of those loyal Roman Catholics, who, throughout all the troubles of the Stuart reign, manifested at once their attachment to their country and their attachment to the freedom, which it guarantees, in opposition to those base, those cruel, those deceitful councils which—I say it advisedly—brought Charles the First to the miserable death which he suffered which prompted this nation to the commission of that crime, and which, as the whole world knows, induced James the Second to adopt a policy, that was as insufferable to the people of this country as the policy of the Neapolitan Bourbons has proved to the people of Southern Italy; these Sovereigns were all actuated by the Fame Jesuitical advice, and were detested by their people in consequence of adopting that policy. Sir John Gray, a leading politican in Dublin, asked, in a recent speech, this question—Can any one show that any section of Roman Catholic people has ever brought a sovereign to his grave? Can any one show that any section of Roman Catholic people has ever caused the deposition of a sovereign? Well, let any man, who is at all conversant with the history of this country, turn to the troubled period which preceded the death of Charles the First, and inform himself who were the advisers of that king, and who exercised influence over him through his unhappy queen. Let him inform himself, also, who were the advisers of James the Second. Who but the Jesuits? James the Second died a Jesuit in exile, and with characteristic gratitude the Jesuits pro-

  1057
  claimed him a fool! I feel hound to recall these events to the recollection of the House, because, unless the promoters of this Bill can show that the opinions, against which the clauses of the oath, which it is now sought to expunge, are directed, have ceased to be operative, unless they can show that they are repudiated by the Papacy, I say there is no case made out why this House should not require its Roman Catholic Members to disavow the opinion, that the Pope possesses the power to depose excommunicated sovereigns, the right to raise their subjects in insurrection against them, and the right to compass the death of such sovereigns. Why, Sir, look at the recent history of Poland. Will any man deny, now that the trials have taken place, that passions are calmed, and that full information is in the hands of the Russian Government—will any man deny, I say, that the late bloody insurrection in Poland, that the murders in Poland, which were perpetrated by the so-called National Government, and that the use of poisoned weapons were not the work of the Ultramontane faction? No man can pretend to say that these outrages have not received countenance and support from the Papal Chair. Will any man deny these facts? And unless he can do so, he cannot show that the vicious opinions against which the clauses of this oath are directed have ceased to exist or have ceased to operate throughout Europe; and, if they are found to be in operation in various parts of Europe, there is nothing to prove that they may not also have operation here. No man can have watched the course of proceedings in Ireland of late years—the repeated attempts at agitation, and the frequent use of seditious language—without seeing that among a minority of the Roman Catholic body, and I thank God that they are a minority, the virus still exists, which the oath we are called upon to abandon requires the Roman Catholic Members of this House to promise that they will discourage and repress. Sir, the repression of those vile opinions is, I should have thought, a task, of which all loyal Roman Catholics ought to be proud, instead of regarding it as an insult, that they are called upon to undertake such an engagement to their fellow-countrymen. ["Hear, hear!"] I repeat it. I say that the repression of these opinions is essential to the freedom of the Roman Catholic body itself, for these opinions meet with too much favour at Rome. Look at
  1058
  the pamphlet which has but recently been published by the Duke de Persigny. In it the writer declares there is a party now dominant at Rome, who are bitterly adverse to the form of Government existing in Franco, who condemn all forms of Government that are not subject to the immediate control and influence of the Papacy, as revolutionary. That is the spirit which is at this moment shedding blood by assassination; and if that spirit has too much influence at present in the Papal Court, then, Sir, I say that it is not for the freedom of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects that we should remove the counteracting influence of the State under which they live, or accept them here otherwise than as the declared opponents of those Jesuit opinions and of that Ultramontane virus which, we learn from the Duke de Persigny and from every reliable source, is now dominant at Rome.
  Sir, I hope the Liberal Members of this House will excuse me if I show them that it is not so very long since there was an admission on the part of a very influential organ of public opinion that, instead of recent events justifying the abandonment of this last security, there is great doubt, whether with a view to the real freedom of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, we have not already gone too far in removing those restrictions upon their action, which are, in fact, a protection to them against influences that we cannot wish to see extended, and which are brought to bear upon them by any extreme section of their Church. The House will forgive me for dwelling a little upon this point. I do not venture to make assertions without proof, and in this matter I speak the opinions of those who cannot be accused of bigotry or prejudice. I know it has been the fashion in former times to say that I was actuated by a bigoted and intolerant spirit. I am happy to say, and I rejoice in the fact, that that impression is worn out, and that the Roman Catholic Members of this House, though I do not expect them to avow it, recognize this fact in me, that if I am what is called a strong Protestant, it is because I am a determined Catholic. It is because I am Catholic by conviction and by faith; it is because I would resist that spirit which has corrupted and defaced the Church of Rome; it is because I would resist that which I consider heretical, schismatical, and corrupt, that I take the part I am now taking in defending the Constitution of this country, which, though

  1059
  called by the name of Protestant, is still founded on those Catholic principles which were developed in Magna Charta, and found expression in the ancient laws of Richard the Second, vindicating for the Roman Catholics of this country the right to regulate their own Church and their own religious worship, accepting only the spiritual advice and counsel of the Papacy, but rejecting every attempt to enforce upon them the temporal usurpation of the Roman See. But I was about to quote a passage from the leading organ of Liberal opinion to which I have referred. It was written so recently as the year 1859, and it says—
  "It is only due to the memory of men who underwent much obloquy for the time, and were even treated with a peculiar and galling kind of contempt, not usual in English political warfare, to ask ourselves, after an experience of just thirty years, which side was in the right? Have the results [that is to say, the results of the Act which you are now asked to alter—the Act of 1829] been in accordance with the sanguine anticipations of Canning, of Macintosh, of Grey, and of Brougham; or has the measure turned out as was predicted by Lord Eldon, 'that hater of all that was liberal and pleasant,' and by Lord Winchilsea, at whose tirades we have all laughed so heartily? There is, unhappily, no doubt about it; the genius, the liberality, and the eloquence were wrong; the narrowness, the bigotry, and the prejudice were right. Ever since the day of deliverance, the conduct of the Roman Catholics has more and more confirmed the predictions of their enemies, more and more disappointed the anticipations of their friends."
  Now, I hold that statement to be unjust towards the great body of Roman Catholics, though not unjust to the Jesuit faction, against whom it is specially directed. But to continue the passage. The writer proceeds—
  "Let any one read the speech of Dr. Moriarty, at Killarney, or the disgraceful scene which occurred at the meeting in Cork (that was in 1859), and then ask himself whether such things are the result of British institutions, and whether he can recognize in them any one of those characteristics which, in spite of all their political differences, distinguish Englishmen from the rest of mankind. Where but in a Roman Catholic meeting, presided over by a bishop and harangued by deans and canons, could the name of the Queen be received with a burst of disapprobation, which rendered the speaker inaudible, from the very voices which yelled out a determination to fight for the Pope? From whom but a Roman Catholic Bishop could one hear it laid down, that it was the duty of a constituency in these islands to exercise their influence on their representatives in order to induce the Government of this country to put down a rebellion in a foreign State, not on any ground of public policy, in which the interests of England are concerned, but only because that tyrannical Sovereign was the head of their Church, and they
  1060
  had, therefore, a vested interest in perpetuating his tyranny and corruption? There is no divided allegiance, as was apprehended. The allegiance is wholly given to one person, and nothing is left for the Queen but yells of disapprobation and the accusation of having starved two millions of Her subjects."
  Non hœc mea verba: this is the language used by The Times, a paper that is accepted by the Liberal party as above all the most able and most powerful exponent of their opinions. Now, Sir, we ought to be cautious, to look about us in this debate, unless some previous inquiry be instituted, such as was preliminary to the passing of the Act which we are now asked to alter—I say we must look a little into the circumstances of the Roman Catholic body in England. The late ecclesiastical chief of that body, Cardinal Wiseman, is no more. And by whom has he been succeeded? By the Rev. Dr. Manning. And what have been the characteristics of that reverend person? Has he shown himself to be a Roman Catholic of moderate opinions? Once a clergyman of the Church of England, do his opinions seem to be of a temperate character? So far from that, it seems to have become rather a maxim at Rome, that those who have been most recently converted to her communion are of all her sons the most zealous and the most extravagant in the opinions they profess. I wish, Sir, to show the House what is the nature of the opinions with which Dr. Manning has favoured the public, and that within no distant period. The House will excuse me if I read a very short passage written by Dr. Manning, and which appeared in The Tablet, a Roman Catholic newspaper, on the 6th of August, 1859. He says—
  "If ever there was a land in which work is to be done, and perhaps much to suffer [speaking of those with whom he intended to act], it is here. I shall not say too much if I say that we have to subjugate and subdue, to conquer, and to rule an Imperial race. We have to do with a will, which reigns throughout the world, as the will of old Rome reigned once. We have to bend or break that will, which nations and kingdoms have found invincible and inflexible."
  Mark this passage—
  "Were heresy conquered in England, it would be conquered throughout the world. All its lines meet here, and therefore the Church of God [meaning the Papal Church] must be gathered in its strength."
  I ask the House to consider the meaning and purport of those words. I will, moreover, show the House that on the 18th of August last, in the county which I have

  1061
  the honour to represent, Dr. Manning preached a sermon, at the opening of a church at Leamington, which was thoroughly in accordance with the opinions enunciated in the passage I have just read. In Warwickshire we were very much struck with that sermon. The substance of it was published in The Leamington Courier and other newspapers, and its accuracy has never been disputed, although it was freely and extensively commented upon by the local journals. I must, therefore, assume that the words which I am about to quote were really spoken by Dr. Manning. He had been speaking of the Church of which he is a member, and of that which, in his opinion, should be required of Roman Catholics as matter of faith. He says—
  "The Church of God was of Divine creation, rested on Divine rules; and [mark the concluding words of the sentence] was administered by Divine persons."
  Now, that word "Divine" is capable of a double interpretation, but I will give Dr. Manning's own interpretation of it—
  "The doctrine of faith, of the Immaculate Conception, of the eternal Word, of eternal life, and of eternal death, were truths which surpassed human conception, and could only be received by Divine faith and teaching. It might be said, can this be the simple doctrine of Christianity? And [continued Dr. Manning] they were to believe it, and to believe that the teacher who delivered those doctrines was God, and that his voice was divine."
  Now, I ask, whether these are not the extreme opinions with regard to religious truth, upon which have been founded those mischievous assumptions, of which the Jesuits have always been the exponents in matters temporal and civil; and whether those words in the sermon delivered last year, coupled with the expressions used by Dr. Manning and published in 1859, do not give us reason to believe that many of the moderate Roman Catholics, many of the old English Roman Catholics, such as the late Duke of Norfolk, the grandfather of the present Duke, and the late Lord Beaumont, whose friendship, I am happy to say, I always enjoyed—are justified in the feelings of uneasiness, which I am told they entertain (I speak only from rumour) at the appointment of Dr. Maiming to the supreme control of matters ecclesiastical, connected with their Church; knowing, as we do, from the recent Encyclical issued by the Pope, that this ecclesiastical control, as it is called, at Rome is intended to extend from the spiritual sphere to direct interference with
  1062
  the arrangements of property and with the conduct of politics, until, in Dr. Manning's words, this "Imperial race," the free people of England, have been "subjugated and subdued" to the rule of the Papacy, which it is the avowed object of Dr. Manning to establish in this country? I ask any hon. Member, then, whether, carrying our eye back through history, and finding in the terms of this oath a record of the means by which our Roman Catholic as well as our Protestant ancestors deemed it necessary to guard the freedom of both communions from century to century against the encroachments of the Papacy—I ask those who do not pretend to be ignorant of these historical facts, whether they think it unreasonable in us to object to proceeding with the alteration of this oath, until, as was the case when the oath of the Protestant Members was altered in 1858, some preliminary inquiry has been instituted either by the Government or by a Committee of this House, or of the other House of Parliament, into the present circumstances of the Roman Catholic body in this country, as those circumstances are affected by the recent attempts to organize the English and the Irish Roman Catholics, as a separate community, governed by a hierarchy, nominated and appointed from Rome; into the circumstances of the Roman Catholics, as affected by recent occurrences on the Continent, and by the character of those who pretend to he placed in authority over them in Ireland and in England? I have heard it said, and I have seen it written, that the increase in this country of the monastic orders of the Church of Rome, to which I not long since drew the attention of the House, is a matter which is totally irrelevant to the subject now under consideration. ["Hear, hear!" from Irish Members.]—Well, some hon. Members appear to think so. But I cannot treat the Act of 1829–10 Geo. IV.—otherwise than as a whole. Now, that Act contains the oath which it is proposed to alter by this Bill. It also contains clauses restricting the monastic orders. But it has been said, "Oh, these were mere concessions to the crotchets and prejudices of the age." In his speech delivered at Dublin, Sir John Gray especially said that those clauses, restrictive of the monastic orders, were painful to the great mind of the late Sir Robert Peel, and unworthy of the extensive Continental knowledge of the late Duke of Wellington, and that they were miserable

  1063
  concessions to a wretched bigotry, which these great men were obliged to make in order to conciliate the ignorance of their benighted followers. Let us see how far this representation is true? With the permission of the House I will read a few words from the speech of the Duke of Wellington, in introducing the clauses with respect to the monastic orders on the 20th of April, 1829. The Duke said—
  "The measure which I now propose for your Lordships' adoption will prevent the increase of such establishments [meaning monastic institutions], and, without oppression to any individuals, without injury to any body of men, will gradually put an end to those which have been already formed. There is no man more convinced than I am of the absolute necessity of carrying into execution that part of the present measure [that is, the Act of 1829], which has for its object the extinction of monastic orders in this country. I entertain no doubts whatever that if that part of the measure be not carried into execution, your lordships will soon see this country and Ireland inundated by Jesuits and regular monastic clergy, with means to establish themselves within His Majesty's dominions."
  Thus, Sir, the result of the experience of the Duke of Wellington, so long versed in Continental matters, led him to guard against the action of this avowedly Papal agency by the introduction of clauses in the Act of 1829. Evidently he did not contemplate the increase of the monastic orders in England and Ireland, as likely to conduce to the happiness of the Roman Catholic body, to their freedom, or to the welfare of society; and if the House has not forgotten the historical and other evidence, which it permitted me to adduce with regard to the increase and action of those orders and of these establishments within the United Kingdom, I think it will agree with me that that increase has within the last few years been ominous. Is not this a circumstance, then, which should make you cautious how you part with the safeguards against the abuse of that Papal power, which it is notoriously the primary function of those regular orders of the Church of Rome lo enforce? Why, every man who knows anything of the history of the Jesuits knows, that their order was especially formed to establish, to extend, and to enforce the temporal power of the Pope. It was but the other day that I was reading in Burnet the account of their early appearance in this country. Just before the persecutions in the reign of Philip and Mary, the Jesuits came to Cardinal Pole, an ecclesiastic of whom I shall ever speak
  1064
  with respect; for I believe that if it had rested with Cardinal Pole the faggots would not have flamed in Smithfield and throughout the country, as they did. And I am sure of this, that he stretched his powers in order to ratify the settlement of property in this country—that settlement of property which you would relieve the Roman Catholic Members of this House from engaging to defend. He exceeded his powers; he actually went beyond the Brief, under which he held authority from the Pope, in order to facilitate the settlement of property in this country. But, as I said, the Jesuits came to him and tendered their services in an opposite sense; and Cardinal Pole—I speak from Dr. Burnet's history, but I might quote other authorities if necessary—rejected their assistance. He seemed to think of that body as did Dr. Brown, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Dublin, in 1551, that they promised to be an element of disturbance in every country where they might obtain establishment. And I appeal to the page of history—I appeal to the modern history of Europe—whether the judgment, formed by these Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, with regard to the Jesuit Order, has not been verified to the letter? And let the House remember it is against the doctrines especially propagated by that Order, that the terms of the oath are directed, which the House is now asked to expunge, and this in the teeth of a fact, which is notorious, that, after not venturing to appear in public for about two centuries, these agents of the Papacy now proclaim their presence in this country through the public prints, and advertize in the services of their churches; take an active part, as far as they dare, and as far as the English people will permit them, in every political arrangement, in every civil establishment, and—this is a characteristic of the Order—in every domestic establishment into which they can, by hook or by crook, thrust themselves, for the purpose of carrying out the spirit which found a voice in the passage from the writings of Dr. Manning, in 1859, that I have quoted to the House. I hope the House will forgive me for speaking at some length, but the subject is a very wide one. The fact is this: the liberality of this House has removed almost every restriction from the Roman Catholics, until, in the terms of this oath, remains the only valid security still existing for the Constitution of this country, I wish hon.

  1065
  Members would consider for a moment what is the meaning of an oath taken at this table. An oath is valuable as a security for the veracity of a witness, a guarantee for the fidelity of an officer, who undertakes certain functions, and for the conduct of trustees, inasmuch as it brings to bear upon the mind apprehensions of the wrath of the Deity, if the juror violates his engagement. That is the operation of an oath upon the conscience. And further, an oath is valuable in the case of a witness, inasmuch as, in addition to the apprehensions of conscience, which might be excited by a violation of the engagement, it imports the penalties of perjury. But I set aside these two elements, its operation upon the conscience of the juror, and the penalties on perjury in this ease, and I still trust to the power of publicity; I still believe that every Member who takes this oath does so with the intention to abide by the conditions of that oath; but whether he does, or whether he does not, he publicly, and as a representative, by the terms of that oath, abjures the deposing power of the Pope, and binds himself to defend the settlement of property, including the quondam ecclesiastical and monastic property, the title to which, remember, the Papacy has never confirmed. I have here a curious original paper which I have compared with Burnet's History, and I find that though Cardinal Pole engaged that the Papacy should ratify the settlement of property under Philip and Mary, the Papacy never did ratify it. The Pope Julius, who accredited Cardinal Pole, died. So did his successor, Marcellus; and the next Pope plainly declared to the Ambassador of Philip and Mary, that to sanction the title to property, which had once belonged to monastic establishments, was contrary to his oath; and, so far from sanctioning the alienation made by the Parliament of this country, he declared it to be sacrilegious, and he required from the Ambassador of our bigoted Queen an acknowledgment that she held Ireland in fief from the Papacy. You may tell me that it does not matter whether the Pope has sanctioned the title to this property or not—the property held by the great house of Bedford, property held by myself, property distributed throughout the whole country, and amounting to nearly one-fourth of the whole property of England; you may tell me that it does not matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick
  1066
  says, "What is the use of an oath to defend the settlement, under which we Roman Catholics hold property in Ireland?" Sir, I will show him what may be the danger of removing this oath. I have here some curious letters, which I found among some old pamphlets and printed letters in my library, and from which Bishop Burnet evidently derived his information in writing his chapter on the History of 1555. The writer of these letters and Bishop Burnet both declare that it might matter little to a Protestant owner whether the Papacy had confirmed the title to his lands or not; but to a Roman Catholic family it matters very much, because the Papacy maintains, and I see by his recent Encyclical that the present Pope still maintains, that the tenure is sacrilegious. And whenever the owner and possessor of that property is drawing near to the close of life, when the breath comes hard, when the eyes are dim, and the passage between the present and future state is but a short span, why, the priest will be apt to remind him, "During your whole life you have held property in sacrilege," and then will ask him, "Will you not make some restitution?" And, Sir, it was the apprehension of this that actuated the Parliament of Queen Mary—the very Parliament which consented to the reconciliation of this country to the Papacy—in passing a stringent Act which, in defiance of all Papal claims, established, so far as the power of this country could, the title to property thus alienated from the monastic orders. But has the Papacy ever consented to this alienation? Produce your proof. You cannot. There has been no such consent; and every Roman Catholic possessor of such property is liable to be disturbed, and the best security he can have is this, that the Roman Catholic Members of this House shall, in the name of the constituencies they represent, declare at this table that they adhere to the decision of the Roman Catholic Parliament of Queen Mary, that this property is duly settled, and settled against the pretensions of the Papacy, pretensions which have never been abandoned.
  Sir, I am fully conscious that others will follow me in this debate who will argue with more ability the propriety of continuing the recognition of that portion of the compact of 1829 which secures the establishment of the Church of England in Ireland and in this country. I see no reason, there has been no valid cause shown,

  1067
  why the Roman Catholic Members of this House should ask to be relieved from that obligation. Do they desire to uproot the Church establishment in Ireland? At present they stand as Members of this House pledged not to compass such an object. But do they not know that there is a considerable body, forming an association in Ireland for the purpose of effecting the dis-establishment of that Church? Why, Sir John Gray, who made the speech in Dublin to which I have before adverted, is a member of that very association. Do hon. Members not know that the Pope, in his recent Encyclical, has formally declared his condemnation of the 37th proposition of the Syllabus, that any Church can be held to be duly established which is separated from the See of Rome? Do hon. Members not know that that is the last version of the Papal doctrine? And if they do know it, why do Roman Catholic Members ask the House to relieve them from the obligation of declaring at this table that they accept their seats here on the understanding that they will not be the exponents of that doctrine in this House, or use their influence for the purpose of disturbing the established institutions of the country? I ask them why do they desire to be relieved? We all know that the assault is contemplated by a certain faction among the Roman Catholics, joined, I am sorry to say, with some Protestants, who have no great attachment to the form of government under which they live. Well, if you have no intention of countenancing this movement, you ought to feel a relief in the fact that you sit in this House on the condition of having solemnly asseverated that you will not take any part in this House in what, I must say, under the circumstances, is an unworthy enter-prize. Why, it is for your own freedom that you recognize this compact with the State. I hold this, because I judge from the state of Italy, I judge from the correspondence which has taken place with France, I judge from the actions of the Emperor of the French himself, that, in the present temper of the Papacy, the great body of Roman Catholics must look to the authority of the States, within whose dominions they live, for protection against those who would force them into the adoption of opinions which, I am happy to believe, are alien to their better judgment. I now, Sir, venture to move the postponement of the further consideration of this Bill until some inquiry has been made into the circumstances to which I have
  1068
  alluded; until some such inquiry has been instituted, as that which preceded the alteration of the other oath in 1858, and until we have upon the notice paper of the House some definite proposals from Her Majesty's Government, showing to what extent they are prepared to sanction the provisions of this Bill; and I make this proposal for delay with the full consciousness that I am performing my duty, because I believe that it is the general opinion of the House—an opinion in which I fully share—that no men who deserve to be treated as Her Majesty's Ministers, no Government purporting to serve Her Majesty, ought lightly or carelessly to promote a Bill, affecting the terms of allegiance upon which certain Members of this House are admitted to their seats. It is, I repeat, contrary to the duty of the advisers of Her Majesty to permit any such alteration to be made except by themselves, or, at all events, until they have had the decency to show that the subject has received their deep and earnest consideration?
  MR. TREHERNEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was extremely puzzled to know what Dr. Manning's appointment, the sermons which he had preached, or the extension of monastic institutions, had to do with the repeal of the oath under discussion; and equally at a loss to understand what argument had been adduced which could induce a hundred hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—twelve of whom were Members of the late Government, and many of whom were Irish representatives—to go out into the lobby in opposition to a measure of the commonest decency and justice. It would be illiberal and unjust to attribute the opposition to the Bill to anything resembling the spirit of the Pharisee; to a desire for superiority of caste; to a feeling of great thankfulness to Providence that we were not as other men are, that we do not require special oaths to enforce our loyalty;

  1069
  and that we are not obnoxious to the stigma of evasions and mental reservations. He was ready to admit that his hon. Friend who had just spoken, and those who agreed with him, might, and probably did, honestly entertain the belief that the repeal of the present Roman Catholic oath would tend to subvert the rule of Her Gracious Majesty, to the restoration of the Papal domination in this country, the re-distribution of forfeited estates, and to the overthrow of the Protestant Establishment and religion in this country. That appeared to be the prevalent idea in the minds of some. But was it, be would ask, justified by experience? Was it not, on the contrary, the fact that every restriction removed had turned out to be an element of strength rather than of weakness to the Church? Had the Irish and Church Temporalities Acts Tithe of 1832, or the Bill doing away with Ministers' Money in 1858, operated to the injury of the Church? Are the English Dissenters more inflamed with rancour against the Church since tests have been abolished and other concessions granted, every one of which at the time, according to the opponents of relaxations, involved the Church of England in ruin. Nothing of the kind. The pages of Hansard were the best proof, and nothing could be more striking than the increased tone of gentleness and respect manifested towards the Church, precisely in the ratio of those concessions being granted which the self-styled friends of the Church pronounced to be the sentence of her overthrow. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire would have Roman Catholics still called upon to declare that they renounced the doctrine that princes excommunicated by the Pope might be dethroned and murdered by their subjects. Now upon that point the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, upon a former occasion, when the subject was discussed in that House, used a few words which he thought were most apposite. The right hon. Gentleman said it seemed to him very extraordinary to ask any man to say that he thinks anyone should not be murdered. It was absurd, and more than absurd, it was contumelious, asking a man to declare he will not do a thing when the word implied that the action he foreswears is an action of the darkest guilt. It is asking him to say whether or not he is totally devoid of all moral obligations. Now, if such absence of all sense of moral obligation existed in the case of Roman Catholic
  1070
  Members, how, he should like to know, were they to be purged of their deficiency in that respect by the administration of the oath which was now imposed upon them? But his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had quoted from various writers in the Middle Ages to prove that monarchs might be deposed or murdered by their subjects at the instigation of the Pope. Now, admitting that such doctrines were promulgated in those un-crupulous and bloody ages, were there not, he would ask, persons in this country who had written to somewhat the same effect, who were neither Roman Catholics nor schoolmen? Were there not most eminent men among the Presbyterians who did not scruple to write and preach that an idolatrous Queen might be deposed and murdered by her subjects? Was it not true that both Buchanan and John Knox had compared Mary Queen of Scots to Jezebel, declaring that she and persons like her might be deposed and murdered? That was a Presbyterian doctrine. And again, had we not Poynet, the Protestant Bishop of Winchester, using, in reference to Queen Mary, language just as bloody and unscrupulous as any made use of by members of the Roman Catholic Church, when he said that "manifold and continual examples of the deposition of Kings and the killing of tyrants do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just, and consonant to God's judgment." So much for the writers of these deeds. And now as to the doers of these deeds. He should like to know who brought about the death of Mary Queen of Scots? The Protestants of England. Who led Charles I. to the scaffold? The Puritans of England. Who deposed James II.? The Protestants of England. Why not, then, impose the oath taken by Roman Catholics on the Protestants and Dissenters of this country, as well? And what had been the conduct of members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who it was said were so completely under the foot of the Vatican, on occasions of trying emergency? When the Armada sailed from Spain—the greatest effort at conquest the Papacy ever made—bearing a banner blessed by the Pope, who were the first to rally round a Protestant Queen? Was it not the venerable Lord Montague, who was present at Tilbury Fort with his son and grandson, at the head of a troop of his own horse. Who commanded the English fleet which shattered the Armada, and destroyed with it every chance of a charge of dynasty and religion? Lord

  1071
  Howard of Effingham, a Roman Catholic. Now, they would have to believe one of two things—either that Lords Montague and Howard had received a secret dispensation from the Pope permitting them to resist his mandates, to command the fleets of an excommunicated heretic, and to shatter those he had bidden go forth to carry out the greatest projects ever prompted by the Vatican—they must believe this mass of impossibilities, or else they must believe that the allegiance of Roman Catholics to their Sovereign in national matters was not influenced by the spiritual authority of the Pope? He must say that the argument of the hon. Gentleman on that point fell to the ground. The next point of the hon. Member for Warwickshire referred to the re-settlement of property, and he said he spoke as much for Roman Catholics themselves as for Protestants. But his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) was a Roman Catholic, and he had as much reason to dread a re-settlement as any one, for he was a holder of confiscated property—indeed, some of the very largest holdings of confiscated properties in Ireland were held by Roman Catholics, It would be impossible to trace land back to its first owner. Confiscation had followed confiscation. The number of confiscated acres was 14,566,000, but the whole area of Ireland consisted of only 10,000,000 acres, and therefore the Roman Catholic landowners were as much interested in the present settlement as Protestants. In respect to his next point the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if this oath were repealed the Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholic Association to which he alluded, would become so strong and all-powerful that the Protestant Establishment of this country would be in danger. He (Mr. Gregory) had never heard an argument more humiliating to Protestants than that or more pitiful. If they considered their Church was based on this miserable quicksand of oaths instead of on the affection and esteem of the people, then of all men Protestants were the most weak and miserable. The advocates for the retention of this oath seem to argue that in a Protestant Assembly of 650 Members it was necessary to tie up the hands of some thirty Roman Catholics; and, by this absurd course, the world was shown the amazing spectacle of the strong imposing oaths on the weak, pledging the weak not to overthrow the strong and de-
  1072
  spoil him, and yet there was high authority for saying that "no man entereth a strong man's house and spoils his goods except he first bind the strong man, and then he may spoil his goods." But the anomaly becomes still greater when it is seen that it is only the Roman Catholic you are in dread of, while no restriction is imposed on the Dissenter and the Jew. Surely, they must have quite as great hostility to the Establishment as any Roman Catholic. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks introduced his Reform Bill, he argued in favour of the retention of small boroughs. Arundel was the battle-horse. "See," said he, "all that this little Arundel represents, nothing less than 900,000 Roman Catholics;" but he (Mr. Gregory) thought at the time that these 900,000 Roman Catholics had no great reason to be pleased that their only representative should be sent into that House with one foot and one hand tied, not be allowed to vote on subjects in which they took the greatest interest, and with a Parliamentary imputation upon his honour and honesty. He would also remark that the oath was one with regard to the interpretation of which great uncertainty existed, some Roman Catholics being of opinion that it did not debar them from voting on questions in which the Protestant Establishment was concerned, while others entertained a contrary opinion. Their constituencies, however, had no such scruples, and they naturally chose the man who would do their bidding, leaving him to settle matters as best he could with his own conscience afterwards. Thus it happened that some men felt themselves precluded, owing to a nice sense of honour, from entering the House of Commons. Was it right, he would ask, to prevent constituencies from choosing for their representatives men to whom they might be anxious to confide their interests? But did the Roman Catholics stand alone in putting different constructions upon the oath? The Protestant authorities themselves differed as to their value. The late Sir Robert Peel acknowledged that Members of that persuasion were entitled to vote on all questions affecting the status and discipline and emoluments of the Church. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), in speaking a few days ago of the opinion which Justice Shee held on the subject, said he approved of the view which he

  1073
  took, which was to the effect that Roman Catholics were debarred by the terms of their oath from abolishing the Church; but then the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the opinion of Justice Shee did not extend to the prohibition of interference with the emoluments of the Church. Roman Catholics were not now-a-days called perjurers and such like epithets, but incidents have occurred in that House to the unpleasantness of which no representative should be subjected. There were many persons present who had not forgotten the celebrated debate on the State of Ireland in 1844, when Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, was replying to the arguments of Mr. Shiel—who alleged the Established Church of Ireland to be one of the grievances which maintained permanent irritation in that country. Although twenty years had passed away, he (Mr. Gregory) well remembered that memorable occasion. He remembered the noble Lord pausing in the midst of his fierce, rapid, and unsparing eloquence. He called on the Clerk of the House to hand to him the Roman Catholic Oath, and, amid a silence in which a pin might have been heard to drop, he read slowly and solemnly, he read in fact as none but he can read—the words of the abjuration; and then he argued from the declarations of the Roman Catholics in 1757, in 1782, in 1808, in 1826, and on other occasions, expressing themselves satisfied with the Protestant Establishment, that there could he but one interpretation of the oath, and the House might form its opinion of those who construed it differently. At the very same moment, however, Sir Robert Peel, who was of opinion that a different construction might be put upon the oath, was sitting beside the noble Lord; so that the whole question of its interpretation was clearly one of perfect uncertainty. That uncertainty alone condemned it. It irritated and wounded, but it gave no strength. He regretted, for those reasons, the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite had thought fit to pursue. Instead of being willing to get rid of all imputations upon the honour and loyalty of the hon. Gentlemen in that House who were Roman Catholics, they had moved an Amendment, which, if carried, would defeat the measure. He confessed he was surprised that so many as a hundred hon. Members on the other side, many of them living among the people of Ireland, should have declared that they
  1074
  would not consent to relieve their Catholic fellow-subjects from most useless and senseless imputations on their loyalty, their honour, and their veracity.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, whatever may be thought of the merits of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, there can be no doubt that the Bill which he has introduced involves a principle of the greatest importance, affecting the strongest feelings and deepest convictions of the population of this country. It is, moreover, a proposition which cannot be got rid of by hard words; and I, therefore, regret the tone which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Gregory) has adopted, and will endeavour to address myself to the question before us in a different spirit. I wish to state the course which I think it desirable to take upon this question as it stands, and upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Let me say that I deeply regret the time and manner in which this Bill comes before us. It is a measure virtually to repeal one of the arrangements which were adopted in 1829 as a security for our Protestant institutions, to be adopted simultaneously with the great measure of Catholic Emancipation. And I will say further, that there is imminent danger that the attempt now made to get rid of a portion of these securities will revive the angry feelings between Roman Catholics and Protestants, which are at all times to be deprecated, but never more so than at the present time. If we are to have a discussion on the Roman Catholic oath forced upon us, it ought to be introduced at a moment when it can be discussed with the utmost calmness and the greatest fairness; and totally free from any of those considerations that have got mixed up with it, and with no feeling and no desire but to do right and justice to Roman Catholics on the one hand and Protestants on the other. In the next place it appears to me that if this measure is introduced at all, it ought to be as a measure promoted by Her Majesty's Government. Whether the change proposed be right or wrong, it is a most important change in a constitutional arrangement of this country. Such a measure ought not to be in the hands of a private Member, but should be introduced with the sanction of the Government, and at a moment when the House is fully at liberty to discuss it, not only calmly, but in the deliberate manner and with that ample measure of time

  1075
  which the constitutional changes involved in it so imperatively require. I say, therefore, with respect to the measure brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) that I regret to see it in private hands. I submit, moreover, if this Bill is to be brought forward by an individual Member, it ought to have been with two conditions. In the first place, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have brought forward this Bill at the beginning of the Session. [Mr. MONSELL: I did.] When I appealed to him last night to postpone the Motion for going into Committee to-day, in consequence of the illness of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) who was most anxious to address the House upon it, and who himself suggested this morning sitting, what was the right hon. Gentleman's answer? He said, and with truth, that the period of the Session at which we have arrived was such that he could not afford to lose a day for the progress of the Bill. [Mr. MONSELL: That was not the whole of my answer.] That was a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and I have already admitted the truth of his statement. He has no time to spare. But I say that this great change in the securities agreed to in 1829 ought to be discussed deliberately and calmly, and not at a time when the right hon. Gentleman can with justice complain that he has not a day to throw away if the Bill is to be passed this Session. I will also say that I most sincerely regret that this measure, so exciting to the feelings of Roman Catholics and Protestants, should be enforced upon us at the eve of a general election. ["Hear, hear!"] I understand the meaning of the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have repeatedly said that we should discuss a Bill of this nature solely upon its merits, and not at a moment when whatever course we may take may expose us to a suspicion that those who promote this Bill and those who oppose it are animated quite as much by the coming elections as by the bearings of the measure on the best interests of the country. But the Bill is before us. It has received the sanction and support of Her Majesty's Government. I also entirely admit the temperate and generous spirit in which this measure has been discussed on both sides of the House. I do not wish to depart from that spirit; but I wish to put it calmly but strongly to the House whether this is quite the time to urge the abandonment of any part of the
  1076
  securities provided by the Act of 1829. What was uniformly the language of Sir Robert Peel on this subject? He always regarded this oath as a part of a compact—as part of a settlement and arrangement. To the hour of the death of that lamented statesman, although he always acted with the greatest generosity and in the most conciliatory spirit towards his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, he always adhered to the opinion that the settlement of 1829 was a final compact and arrangement, and one that, to the best of his judgment, ought not to be lightly, if at all, departed from. What is the object and nature of the Roman Catholic oath as it stands? It consists of many parts, but it substantially aims at one thing, and that is the requirement that when the Roman Catholics were admitted to the full privileges of the British Constitution only on one condition should their disabilities be removed—namely, that they should not exercise the constitutional power given to them by that Act to the injury of the Protestant institutions so much valued by the people of this country. That I think is not an unfair description of the oath. Well, has it had that effect? We all recognize the honourable manner in which the Roman Catholic body have acted since the Emancipation Act. That oath has, no doubt, acted as a restraint, and has had its effect on the honourable minds of Roman Catholic Gentlemen in this House, and has deterred them from taking any course with regard to various matters connected with the Protestant institutions of the country which they considered inconsistent with the obligations they contracted under that oath. May I not ask, if we consent to the abrogation of that part of the security so enacted by the Act of 1829, would it be possible to do so without exciting feelings of alarm and apprehension among the great body of the Protestants of England and Ireland, inspiring in their minds the idea that there is a feeling of inconstancy on the part of the British Parliament, and that we are now not only disposed, as we always have been, to treat the Roman Catholics in a most generous spirit, but that we are ready to abandon that protection to the Protestant interests of this country that has always been dear to them? If we look abroad at the signs of the times, can it be said that this is a prudent moment for the abrogation of the Protestant security that is enacted by the Roman Catholic oath?

  1077
  What is the state of affairs immediately around us at home? What are the facts forced upon the attention of the House? On a very recent day an attempt was made in this House to undermine and destroy, I may say without exaggeration, the Protestant Church in Ireland. What is going on in Dublin at this moment? The House will permit me to read a letter which was adverted to by my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) on a former debate. An Association has been formed in Dublin, called the National Association, for particular objects, and with the concurrence, sanction, and support of Archbishop Cullen, of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. The letter in question was written by the Secretary of that Association, and addressed to an Irish journal—
  "Sir,—The Irish Times of this day contains an announcement that 'the Established Church has been withdrawn from the programme of the National Association, and the questions to which it will confine its attention will be tenant right and education.' I beg to inform you that there is no foundation for the above statement, and the intentions of the Association in relation to the Irish Church Establishment have undergone no modification, and that the gentlemen with whom rests the direction of the policy of the association are unanimous in their determination to have no compromise with the Establishment or its advocates, and to spare no effort for its overthrow."
  Well, Sir, from all I have heard, I believe that, although Archbishop Cullen may give his countenance to this Association, it is sanctioned and supported by very few members of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. I cannot, however, too strongly express my regret that any portion of the Roman Catholics of Ireland should be thus assuming an aggressive attitude against Protestant institutions in that country. But such is the fact; and I ask is this a moment for us to go out of our way to remove any of those securities that were enacted for the protection of the Protestant Church of Ireland? What is the feeling of this House and the general feeling of the country in regard to the Protestant Establishment of Ireland? I do not believe there is any large portion of this House, or of the public, who are disposed to join in a hostile attack upon the Protestant Church of Ireland. It is true that on a late occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech which certainly did lead the Roman Catholics of Ireland to suppose that he was enlisted among the enemies of the Protes-
  1078
  tant Church in that country, just as a year ago he made a speech which led the Radical Reformers of England to suppose that he had enlisted among their ranks. How far, however, the right hon. Gentleman may realize the expectations he has raised in either of those quarters it is not for me to say. But, notwithstanding his apparent adherence to the attack on the Protestant Church in Ireland, I repeat my belief that there is no large portion either of the statesmen of this country, or the Members of this House, or the public generally, who desire to attack or undermine that branch of the Protestant Church of this country. For these reasons it does appear to me that this is not the moment to adopt in its entirety the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell). I will now beg leave to state, on the other hand, the view which I take of the proposal as a whole. The Roman Catholic oath may be practically divided into two parts. One portion of the oath was intended for the security of our Protestant institutions. It is, at all events, accepted by a large body of the Protestant public as giving that security, and the Protestant public will feel aggrieved if the House were to relax it. On the other hand, on looking carefully through the terms of the oath, there are portions of it of far less importance with regard to its essential substance, and which the Roman Catholic gentry of England and Ireland may not unreasonably consider offensive to their feelings. I am glad to be able to make this admission, because I can with great sincerity assure the Roman Catholic Members of this House that it is to me a most painful thing to be compelled by a sense of public duty to hold language which may even appear to be of an intolerant character. I am broadly the advocate of religious liberty and perfect toleration. [An hon. MEMBER: Equality, not toleration!] I am speaking my sincere convictions, which through a long political life have been in favour of the most perfect religious liberty and toleration, and my wish is to admit my Roman Catholic fellow subjects to the full enjoyment of all the privileges of the British Constitution. I think I have given proofs of that desire. I might refer to a very recent occasion, on which it was my misfortune to differ from a number of those with whom I usually act—I mean the Prison Ministers' Bill. I had no hesitation then in supporting the fair and legitimate claims of the Roman Catholics; I would

  1079
  do so again, and I am quite free to say that the Bill ought to be carried to a point further than it now stands. I will now state the practical course which I should like to see taken, and which appears to me the most just, conciliatory, and desirable with regard to the specific Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The Roman Catholic oath, as regards the question now before us, may be divided into four parts. I will advert to those parts of the oath which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit. The first is—
  "And I do further declare, that is is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever."
  I at once say that I for one have no objection to omit these words from the Roman Catholic oath. I have no wish to impute to the Roman Catholic gentry of England and Ireland that they think at this time of day that a Prince excommunicated by the Pope may be murdered. I do think that such an imputation is offering an affront to those gentlemen, and I am willing to consent to the omission of those words from the oath. Upon the next part of the oath the right hon. Gentleman makes a change, but it is not one that appears to me very considerable or important. The oath is—
  "And I do declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly, or indirectly, within this realm;"
  Well, he alters these words by leaving out "the Pope of Rome or any other," and the right hon. Gentleman makes the oath read—
  "That no foreign Prince, &c, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. And I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian."
  Well, as far as I am concerned, I have no objection to that alteration. I now come to the third part of the oath—
  "And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever."
  I am perfectly willing to admit that these words may be naturally considered offensive to Roman Catholic gentlemen. Whe-
  1080
  ther or not, after a settlement made thirty or forty years ago, after having deliberately accepted this oath, it is worth while to raise this question may be a subject of doubt. But the right hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and, as an English gentleman, I cannot deny that if I were a Roman Catholic I should consider this particular part of the oath as offensive and insulting, since it would impute to me that in taking the oath there was a possibility of equivocation or mental reservation on my part. A man of honour and truth never could take the oath with this equivocation or mental reservation, and with regard to him who is not a man of honour and truth no oath would ever bind him. Well, Sir, I now come to the fourth part of the oath, and I am sorry to say that with regard to it I cannot use the same language. The fourth part is as follows:—
  "I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm as established by the laws; 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 to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in this Kingdom."
  This passage contains two parts, the first of which relates to the settlement of property, and here I beg leave to quote a few words from the speech of Sir Robert Peel on the Oaths Bill introduced by Lord John Russell in 1849. Sir Robert Peel said that—
  "The Roman Catholic repeated the assurance that he would acquiesce in the settlement of property which had taken place after the restoration of Charles II. He thought the noble Lord had acted wisely in not disturbing the Roman Catholic oath in the Act of 1829."—[3 Hansard, cv. 455.]
  Here we have the most distinct statement of the opinion of Sir Robert Peel that, for the reasons mentioned, those words relating to the settlement of property ought not to be omitted; and, after giving the most anxious consideration to the question how far I could reconcile my views of right with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am disposed to adopt the statement of Sir Robert Peel, and say that I cannot consent to relax that part of the oath. Still less can I relax that other part, wherein the Roman Catholic disclaims, disavows, and solemnly abjures any intention to use the power granted him by the Act of 1829 to the injury of our Pro-

  1081
  testant Establishment. I am sorry—very sorry—that the Roman Catholics should wish to relax the terms of an oath which formed the solemn condition upon which they were placed upon an equality with the rest of their fellow-countrymen. As they esteem their own religion, so they have no right to doubt that we are anxious for the protection of ours. There was a deliberate settlement and compact entered into, and all we ask, as I have said before, is that it be adhered to. If you analyze the oath you will find that there is one object which pervades the whole. You make only one condition—that the Catholics will not exorcise the power conferred on them by the Act in order to injure your Protestant institutions. I do think, on the one hand, that this is a power which the Roman Catholics themselves ought not to desire; and, on the other, that it is a power which the Protestant Parliament of England ought not to concede. Sir, these are the views with which I approach the consideration of this question. The vote which I may give upon going to a division must depend upon the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) may be disposed to return to the question which I now venture to put—namely, whether, in the event of our going into Committee upon this Bill on the understanding, so far as I have a right to intimate it, that those three portions of the oath to which I have adverted shall be struck out in order to conciliate the Roman Catholic body and to consult their views, he would consent to the reintroduction of those words which I have just read, and which relate to the security of the Protestant interests of this country. If the right, hon. Gentleman is willing to go into Committee upon that understanding I am prepared to vote for the proposal which will, I believe, be made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). On the other hand, if he tells me—which I am sure he will frankly do if he cannot consent—that he is not willing to accept that arrangement, then I shall, though with reluctance, feel it my duty to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, the question which has just been put by the right hon. Gentleman spoils, I am sorry to say, both the spirit and character of a very excellent speech. That question is nothing more or less than this—whether, Parliament
  1082
  having for a certain number of years been advancing in the path of a wiser policy and sounder principles, and establishing upon a broader basis those principles of civil and religious liberty which have been growing more and more upon the convictions and affections of the people of this country, my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick will now consent to make a retrograde movement and re-enact the penalties or disabilities which Parliament deliberately expunged from the statute book seven years ago. Sir, I must express my profound regret that the rumoured arrangement which might have met on both sides of the House with a general concurrence has been found to be impracticable. Of late years we have had no discussions in this House so embarrassing and painful as those respecting the oaths which we take at that table, and the only comfort to be derived from those discussions is that at last they have brought with them a wholesome and very desirable change in the opinion of Parliament, which I believe will never consent to recede from the position which lately it has deliberately taken up. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire has treated this as a question I merely affecting the Roman Catholics; but I think it is a question affecting Protestants and all believers in the revealed religion in which my hon. Friend and myself are as much interested as any of our Catholic fellow-subjects. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down (Sir John Pakington) has dwelt very much upon this oath being a Protestant's security, and he has spoken of it as being a settlement and a compact. But I have listened in vain, during these discussions, with a view to learn wherein that security consists. And, let me ask, what is the nature of that settlement and compact? Sir, every Act of Parliament that is passed is a settlement of some question for the time being. We have in the course of every year a hundred settlements, which remain as settlements until they are disturbed by subsequent Acts of Parliament. And as to a compact, you may talk of a compact between two co-equal Powers, but when you talk of a compact between a Government and a portion of its subjects, you talk of a compact between a strong majority and a weak minority, the one dictating in its strength what the other in its weakness is compelled to accept. And when there has been a change in the relative strength of those two parties, either by an increase in the

  1083
  numbers of the weaker or a growing sympathy throughout the nation with their cause, then the weaker party may ask for a revision of the terms imposed upon them in a time of weakness, and the other party must consent to that revision which they would have resisted when their strength was undiminished. Sir, an admission was made by my right hon. Friend opposite which lies at the bottom of the whole question, when he said that the Act of Emancipation established, and was intended to establish, equality between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I thank my right hon. Friend for that admission. My objection to this oath is that it establishes a distinction between Catholics and Protestants, between two classes of Members, between the Catholic and every other Member of the House. Be he a Churchman, a Dissenter, a Quaker, or a Jew, his creed is admitted to be one that is consistent with morality and allegiance, and he is invested with full powers to deal with every legislative question which may be submitted to Parliament. But the Roman Catholic oath is framed on the assumption that his creed is one which inculcates immorality and a questionable allegiance. You restrict his powers, you narrow his functions, and you exclude him from that large branch of legislation which falls under the title of ecclesiastical. And we know, as my right hon. Friend said, that there have been conscientious Catholics who have felt themselves debarred by the oath from taking part in discussions on the temporalities of the Church, and he wishes to re-impose upon them that portion of the oath which acts as a restriction. But what about the English Dissenters? Are they not avowed enemies of the Establishment? And do you attempt to place any restriction upon them They have formed a very powerful organization for the express purpose of overthrowing the Establishment; and do not they tell us that they hope that organization will be successful? But do you try to restrain them or blame them? Is it not the duty of a man who believes that the separation of Church and State will promote religion and be beneficial to the State to strain every nerve to effect that separation? Well, then, why not apply that principle to Catholics? And the more sincere and devout the Roman Catholic, the more earnestly must he desire to convert the State to his opinions, and to re-establish by peaceful and moral means his Church in
  1084
  place of the one which he is now sworn not to subvert. But now, let me ask, what security does this oath really give? If the Catholics become powerful enough to subvert the Establishment, will not the first thing they will do be to repeal the oath? The Church Establishment is the creature of law, the law is the child of opinion, and as opinion changes the law must change. And, Sir, I am happy to say that we do see of late years changes of opinion, changes rapid and decisive, which lead to a wiser policy, a policy from which this House, I trust, will never turn away. We know there was a time when the law said that every member of the Legislature must be of one religion, and that there were good men, and wise men, and bold men, who sought to repeal that law, and were met year by year, and step by step, by the cries of intolerance. When it was first proposed to admit Dissenters to Parliament, intolerance raised a cry and said, "If you admit Dissenters, the Church will be in danger." Then when the proposal to admit the Catholics was made, intolerance shifted its ground, and raised another cry, "If you admit Catholics, Protestantism will be in danger." But the good sense and advancing justice of the nation prevailed over that cry also, and the Catholics were admitted. And when, after a long interval, it was proposed to admit the Jews, intolerance once more shifted its ground and cried, "If you admit the Jew, Christianity will be in danger." Well, the Dissenter was admitted, the Catholic was admitted, the Jew was admitted, and now every successive year accumulates evidence upon us that the Protestantism of the nation has not been weakened but strengthened, that the Christianity of Parliament has not been lowered but exalted by the application of the Christian principles of charity and justice; and yet a new cry of intolerant bigotry is still raised when, in a modified form, we are asked to forbear to perpetuate a vexatious and offensive oath upon our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. ["No, no!"] My hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) takes great exception to the phrase "intolerant bigotry." Well, I assure him that it escaped me unintentionally. But at all events we are now asked to perpetuate a vexatious and tormenting form of oath, which, I may be permitted to say, is a relic of a dark age; which is powerless as a security, but mischievous as a stigma and an offence. Now, I say that with regard to the Catholic Members. But now,

  1085
  speaking as a Protestant, I beg to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a question which affects both him and me equally as Protestants. If we go into Committee on this Bill, I do so for the purpose of voting for an Amendment, of which notice has been given, to revise all the oaths taken by Members of this House. Well, now, what is our position? My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and I at the beginning of Parliament take an oath at that table. We ask Catholic Members to take an oath and to swear that the Pope has no spiritual jurisdiction in this country. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon—there is a distinction, the word "spiritual" is omitted from the oath taken by the Catholic. But my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and I swear that the Pope has no spiritual jurisdiction in these realms. Do not we? Very well. We swear he has no spiritual power or jurisdiction, but is that true? [Mr. KER: I think not.] I hope my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire will not be offended if I put a question to him which I have often put to myself, and it is this—Is the oath which he, and I, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin take that the Pope has no spiritual jurisdiction within these realms true? [Mr. WHITESIDE: Yes, it is. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire cannot say that, because he over and over again has got up in this House and complained of that jurisdiction, and he has warned us of the increasing dangers to be apprehended from it.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: The House will permit me to explain what I have sworn, and what I meant by so swearing. I swore that the Pope held by law no jurisdiction, and I have never spoken of the influence which he exercised otherwise than as illegal.
  MR. HORSMAN: I must again re-mind my hon. Friend, when he tells us what he has sworn, that he has sworn nothing but what I have myself sworn, and therefore I cannot intend to throw any imputation upon him. But when he puts in a word which is very significant, and says, "I meant that the Pope has no legal jurisdiction," I must remind him of this, that we call upon Roman Catholics to swear "in the plain but ordinary sense of the word, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever." And I may add that this is a difficulty which I myself have often felt. I know what I
  1086
  have meant to swear, but they are not the words which I do swear, and therefore when I call upon Catholics Members to swear "without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation," I feel bound to ask myself whether I take the oath in that sense, and do not mean to swear in any other. But then the lawyers give us a salve for our conscience, and tell us that the Pope has no legal jurisdiction. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Jurisdiction!] They say he has no legal jurisdiction. Well, I confess that with my Friend opposite (Mr. Newdegate), I follow the multitude; I accept that interpretation, and I take the oath, but under a species of coercion, because the alternative is exclusion from this House. But lot me now test my hon. Friend's definition of "legal" jurisdiction. Now, what is legal jurisdiction? There is a legality of two kinds, a legality which is established by law; and a legality which is recognized and suffered by law. I am sure my hon. Friend, the Member for North Warwickshire, knows Bishop Ullathorne. Bishop Ullathorne has a jurisdiction which he exercises in Warwickshire under the mandate of the Pope. That jurisdiction may not be established by law, the law ignores its exercise, but my hon. Friend would not propose to prosecute Dr. Ullathorne for his exercise of that jurisdiction? Then there are the Irish bishops. We know for a long time past the Pope has appointed bishops in Ireland, with spiritual jurisdiction and territorial titles, which have been recognized by Acts of Parliament assented to by the Crown. I confess that when I know that this jurisdiction has been recognized by Acts of Parliament, in which those bishops have been acknowledged by their titles, and that those Acts of Parliament have been sanctioned by the Crown, I should find some difficulty in any other assembly in clearing myself from the charge of casuistry, when I affirmed that their jurisdiction was illegal. But whether it be legal or not, as a Protestant I should feel it a great boon if I was never required to take the oath at that table; for, turn and twist it as we may, we take it in a sense in which there is far more of casuistry than of truth, and yet we are Protestants. Well, Sir, in the question now before us there are at all events certain points of agreement. I think we must all be agreed that all unnecessary oaths are objectionable, that oaths of doubtful construction are immoral, and no one can deny, who has studied the question, that restrictive oaths, limiting the

  1087
  power of one class of Members, while that very power is given to another class, must be unconstitutional. I may ask the House to go one step further with me, and say that criminatory oaths, which cast a suspicion and reproach on the creed of a large portion of our fellow-subjects, must be an injustice, an impolicy, and an offence. I shall go into Committee with the intention of supporting the Amendment that we shall have one uniform oath, and the great recommendation of such an oath will be its simplicity. I should wish to see no oath sworn at that table but the oath of allegiance. That is an oath which every man can take, and which may suffice for every purpose. Why, Sir, the loyalty of the nation is the best and only security for any of its institutions, and that oath taken by every man in this House puts us all upon an equality, and joins us together in one great bond of national sympathy and brotherhood, without distinction of creed or class. There is one point which has been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite in which I entirely agree, and that is that the question should have been brought forward upon the responsibility of the Government. At the same time we have to deal with the circumstances before us. An independent Member of this House, in the exercise of his undoubted discretion, has brought forward this measure upon its merits. I shall be very glad when we come out of Committee if the charge of the Bill be transferred from my right hon. Friend to Her Majesty's Government. I think that would be a proper change, taking into consideration both the nature of the subject and the lateness of the Session. I think it is not right that we should leave it to a Catholic Member of this House to propose a change which implies that there is merely a Catholic grievance. Sir, this question affects the character of the House and the principle upon which legislation proceeds, and therefore I should like to see all the weight of the Government brought to bear in order to accomplish a change which is equally dictated by policy and by justice.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, before we go to a division on this Motion, I should be glad, with the indulgence of the House, to state very briefly the grounds on which I for one shall give my vote. And first, I desire to clear the case from some topics introduced into it by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Hors-man), which seem to me to be irrelevant.
  1088
  This is not a question of the imposition of a new oath for the first time on any class of Members. If it were, a great many of the arguments which he adduced might have had much more force and weight than I take leave to think they have in the present discussion. Neither is this an occasion on which, with any kind of propriety, we can discuss the oath taken by the Protestant Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman says he intends to go into Committee with the view of voting for a uniform oath for all Members of Parliament. But that is not the title of this Bill, and that is not the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure asked us to adopt. When it is thought desirable, either on the part of Her Majesty's Government or on the part of any individual Member, to bring in a measure for that purpose, it will be done by a Bill expressly framed for the purpose, and upon that Bill, on the second reading, will the House pronounce its opinion—Aye or No—whether one uniform oath for all Members is or is not desirable. I beg the House now to consider the very different avowed purposes and objects for which hon. Members belonging to the Roman Catholic faith ask that the present form of the oath which they have been in the habit of taking should be altered. Let me remind the House of what really are the three different parts of that oath. The first part which it is desired to alter is this—
  "I do further declare that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion that Princes ex-communicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever."
  What is the purpose for which and the reason why it is proposed to alter that part of the oath? Is it because the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) wishes to be free and all the Roman Catholic Members wish to be free from the obligation which that part of the oath imposes? Do they say, "We desire to be free from any obligation that would restrain us from doing the things pointed at by that part of the oath?" Nothing of the kind. I should be sorry to understand the case of the Roman Catholic Members to be otherwise than this—that they have no such tenet in their faith, that they never had, that they disavow it, and that it is ridiculous to ask them every time they take their seats in Parliament to abjure it,

  1089
  That being the reason why it is proposed to alter that part of the oath, I am bound to say that I agree with the reason, that I do not believe it is a tenet of the Roman Catholic faith. I have not the slightest desire to impose on the conscience and feelings of the Roman Catholic Members the repetition of an abjuration and disavowal which I believe to be not only unnecessary, but almost absurd. I agree, therefore, not only to the alteration of that part of the oath but also to the reason assigned for it. In like manner I deal with the last part of the oath—namely—
  "And I do solemnly in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever."
  Why is it sought to alter that? Is it because Roman Catholic Members wish to be free from the obligation against equivocation? Nothing of the kind. They say, "We have no intention to equivocate or exercise mental reservation, and we feel it an affront to suppose that we have." Then I say again I agree with the alteration proposed and with the reason for it; because that reason is that the oath is unnecessary, professing to cover that which is no danger, and being useless, and at the same time hurtful to the feelings of those to whom it i3 administered. But the moment we come to the other portion of the oath which it is proposed to alter there arises a great and substantial question; and I beg the House to consider how very different are the language and the motives expressed by those who ask for its alteration—I mean the part which says—
  "I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws. 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 to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in this Kingdom."
  Observe how different is the case when we come to this part of the oath. Do hon. Members who seek for an alteration here rise and say, "We ask that this part may he altered because it is offensive in its wording?" Nobody has said that, and it could not be so contended. But do they say, "It is idle and useless to make us take this part, because we have no inten-
  1090
  tion of subverting the Church Establishment or of using any privilege we may have to disturb the settlement of Church property, and no desire to weaken the Protestant religion or the Protestant Government of the kingdom? "I am obliged to answer that I understand the language of the Roman Catholic Members to be altogether different from that. The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand their language to be that they desire to be free—perfectly free—to subvert the Church Establishment if they please and if they can, and that it is because they find this oath to be an impediment in their way that they wish to be released from its obligation. Am I right or am I wrong in that? I find that, in some observations in regard to this Bill attributed to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) in some of the usual organs of public information, he was represented as having said, that, in the introduction of the measure, he had no desire to interfere with the Church Establishment. And what did the right hon. Gentleman do? If I mistake not he wrote to the journal which had made that statement begging leave to contradict it, and saying that with respect to the Establishment in England he had no wish to disturb it as long as the English people liked it, but implying or expressing that in regard to the Irish branch of the Establishment, the case was altogether different; and he renounced—if I may use the term with perfect respect—the idea that he did not wish to subvert it. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial side.] I am glad, then, to have it so far avowed that the object here is to get rid of this part of the oath, not because it is idle or useless, but because it has a meaning and an operation, and is an obstacle in the way of that which they desire. Well, it is a remarkable fact that at this particular juncture an Association has been formed within the last few months in Dublin, and is either presided over or patronized by a number of prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, which has made no secret as to what its object is—namely, the complete subversion of the Established Church in Ireland. Am I right or am I wrong there? A journal in Dublin made some statements as to the object of that Association, implying that it understood the Association had relinquished any idea of agitating for the disturbance of the Established Church; but the organ of the Association wrote to say that the gentle-

  1091
  men with whom it rested to direct the policy of the body—including, remember, the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church—"are unanimous in the determination to have no compromise with the Establishment or its advocates, and to spare no efforts for its overthrow." We have here, at all events, the frank confession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and also of the members of his own faith in the sister country, that their intention at the present moment is—first, to insure, if they can, the overthrow of the Established Church; and secondly, to get rid of this oath because it is an obstacle in the way of the promotion of that overthrow. Then I must ask myself this question-That being the avowed object of those who promote this Bill, is this oath any safeguard—has it proved by practical experience any safeguard—to the Established Church against attack, any impediment in the way of proceedings taken for its subversion? Upon that point, how stand the facts? In the first place, I shall be justified in saying that I want no other proof than that the members of the Roman Catholic faith think it worth while to agitate for the repeal of this part of the oath in the sense of and with the motives avowed by the right hon. Member for Limerick. But what has been the effect of the oath as regards the purposes for which it was introduced? Nobody can deny that it was introduced as a safeguard for the Protestant institutions of the country. It may have been wise or unwise, but that was its original purpose. And what has been its effect? We had it stated to us on a former occasion by the Secretary of State that a noble Duke when he had a seat in this House (the Duke of Norfolk), and another relative of his who now has a seat in this House, both Members of the Roman Catholic Church, had both felt—and I cannot conceive how they could have felt otherwise—that this oath was of that efficiency and that stringency that it would be improper for them, in the face of its obligations, to concur in any attacks upon the Protestant institutions of the country. Then take a learned person for whom I have a high respect—I mean Mr. Justice Shee. The hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Gregory) appeared to think that Mr. Justice Shee, in his interpretation of the oath, admitted great latitude as to its construction, and intimated an opinion that, in point of fact, consistently with this oath, you might vote for everything but the
  1092
  total destruction of the Established Church. Now Mr. Justice Shee said this—
  "I have a clear conviction that Catholic Members, however strong may be their impression as to its expediency, ought not to vote so long as a solemn abjuration of all intention to subvert the Church Establishment, and a solemn promise not to exercise any privilege to which they are or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, continue to be among the conditions on which they are admitted to seats in Parliament. The faith plighted by those words has been hitherto preserved inviolate.… Having made that abjuration they are committed by it to a loyal acquiescence in the retention by the Protestant Episcopal Church of a temporal provision adequate to secure its efficiency and the maintenance of its Bishops and clergy in competence and honour."
  This is the opinion of that learned Judge—and I venture to say it is a sound and proper opinion—as to the stringency of the oath. But we have also the opinion of Mr. Lucas, lately a Member of this House, who spoke in the most solemn way of the binding effect of the oath on his conscience, and said that, having taken it, he could not join in any attacks on the Established Church. But, further, I have the greatest reason to believe that there sit at this moment in this House Members professing the Roman Catholic faith—not one, two, or three, but many Members—who feel that this oath does bind their consciences according to the full effect and meaning of the words, and that they are precluded by it from joining in any attack, if attack should be made, on the Established Church or the Protestant institutions of the country. Then if this be so—if this oath was intended at the time of its introduction to be one of the safeguards of our Protestant institutions—if it has operated in the manner I have described for a period of at least thirty-five years—what I want to know is this:—We have the Protestant population of this country, if not altogether, yet almost unanimously relying on the effect of this oath and satisfied with the operation of it, as far as we can see; and I ask what right have we, the Protestant Members of this House—and I appeal to all those Members who hear me—what right have we to surrender that which was introduced as a safeguard for our Protestant institutions, and which, however, ineffectively, has proved one of those safeguards? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said there was no arrangement or compact, or if there was it was of that kind where the stronger party imposed terms on the weaker, and the weaker had

  1093
  nothing to do but to consent to them. I can test that part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. Did that Roman Catholic Archbishop, Dr. Murray, speak of terms imposed by a stronger party on a weaker? Nothing of the kind. lie was asked by a Committee of this House—
  "Have you any reason to think that in the minds of any part of the Roman Catholic clergy there exists any hope or any wish to interfere with the temporal possessions of the Established Church?"
  His answer was—
  "Not the least; there is no wish on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy to disturb the present Establishment, or to partake of any part of the wealth it enjoys. Question—Nor any objection to give the most full and entire assurance on that subject by any declaration that may be required of them? Not the least."
  And observe, that was the declaration of Dr. Murray before the Emancipation Bill was introduced into this House, and he stated, not that he was anxious to make terms as one who could not make better, but he gave a hearty and sincere adhesion on the part of those whom he represented, and who freely and willingly assented to the arrangement made with them. I take also a statement made by a very eminent nobleman, a member of the Roman Catholic faith, Lord Camoys, who declared—
  "It is also said that the Roman Catholics were parties to the oath of 1829, and that, therefore, they have no right to quarrel with its details. My Lords, there are many of the Roman Catholics who strongly deny this statement; they say they were not in Parliament at the time, and therefore were no parties to the oath. I must candidly acknowledge that I differ from those Roman Catholics in that view, and must confess that we were parties, by consent at least, to that oath. That oath received the sanction of the Catholic prelates; that oath received the sanction of the great leader of emancipation—Mr. O'Connell. That oath was gladly taken by us at the time of the Emancipation Act, and that oath has been taken by us ever since; and though here and there some Members may he found who had felt some doubt as to the interpretation of some passages in it when questions affecting the Established Church had come before Parliament, yet, on the whole, that oath had been no bar to the full discharge of our Parliamentary and other public duties."
  After that, although I do not contend that an Act of Parliament is a compact which cannot be departed from, but that we must look at all the circumstances which led to the passing of every Act, yet I say it is too much to contend that the form of this oath, in the parts of it to which I am now referring, was not a willing and a cheerful stipulation on the part of the Roman
  1094
  Catholic prelates, and a free expression of their wishes and intentions at the time. What, then, are the objections made to this portion of the oath? It is said that it is ambiguous in form, and that various persons at different times have put various interpretations upon it. I am afraid, Sir, that that is an argument which, if it is worth anything, goes against every form of oath. I do not believe that in regard to an oath in futuro, prescribing a line of conduct for the future, and not merely having reference to things in times past, it would be possible to frame an oath as to which there may not be controversy and difference of opinion. I was surprised to bear an hon. Member say the late Sir Robert Peel held that the oath left every Roman Catholic Member who might take it free to deal with any of the established institutions of the country, and that if he thought fit he might advocate their abolition. I am not prepared to give an answer to a statement based on any information which I have not had the means of examining; but I shall be glad to hear any hon. Gentleman explain the passage in which the late Sir Robert Peel is supposed to have made that statement. I venture most respectfully to doubt whether he ever made any statement of the kind; and I own that I think any statement of that description from the late Sir Robert Peel would be totally at variance with what he said in 1849, when speaking of the Roman Catholic oath. He attached the greatest importance to its retention, and said that Lord Russell had done wisely, in the form of oath he then proposed, in suggesting to the House no alteration in the Roman Catholic oath in those parts of it to which I have been referring. But it is said with regard to the Church Establishment that some people have the opinion that the oath does not touch the temporalities. I do not want now to enter into that; but the words which come before put the temporalities of the Church beyond all doubt. I mean "the settlement of property as by law established," because this settlement of property does not relate merely to the property of individuals—there I suppose that length of possession alone would give a sufficient title, and would protect it—but it means more expressly in this case that settlement of property as by law established, in which the Church is spoken of in the remaining part of the sentence as above all particularly interested. Then, it is said that Protestant Members of this House,

  1095
  those especially of the Nonconformist persuasion who have always very candidly and very consistently expressed their dislike to the Establishment, and their desire in every way to reduce it, and, if possible, overthrow it—it i3 said that they do not take this oath; and it is asked if Roman Catholics take it why Nonconformists and all other Members should not do the same? My answer to that is that this is not a question now of imposing an oath for the first time, but of whether those who have taken it for thirty-five years, and taken it as a condition of holding seats in the Legislature of a Protestant country, are to cease to take an oath to which they assented under the circumstances which I have described. If any person proposed the imposition of a new oath for the first time on other Members of this House, very different questions might arise. It has wisely or unwisely been thought that the Protestant Members of this House did not require to take an oath of this kind; whereas, on the other hand, it has been thought in regard to Members of the Roman Catholic faith, that it could not be and never was disguised that their faith is antagonistic to the reformed faith of this country, that it was right and proper they should take the oath in this form as a condition of having seats in this House. I am obliged to the House for allowing me to state the grounds on which I propose to give my vote in the division which is now approaching. If the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) answers the question put to him by my right hon. Friend beside me (Sir John Pakington) and says he will be satisfied with getting rid of those parts of the oath which are offensive in form, then I can see no reason why those parts should not be repealed, still retaining that part on which I have laid so much stress. But, on the other hand, if that is not the view of the right hon. Gentleman—and I am bound to say I do not believe it is—I am bound to say I believe the right hon. Gentleman desires and has made no secret of the desire to alter the oath to the full extent which he has proposed to alter it in his Bill—then we can vote on this question now just as well as if we were in Committee. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, and if nothing will content him but the removal from the oath of those passages in which the person taking it abjures the idea of subverting the Established Church or the Protestant institutions of the realm, then,
  1096
  Sir, I shall cheerfully vote with my hon. Friend behind me.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARD: Sir, I do not rise to follow the hon. and learned Member with the view of making a speech; I merely wish to say a few words by way of explanation. The hon. and learned Gentleman founded a portion of his speech on the assumption that two persons to whom he alluded—one my lamented brother and the other myself—who, he said, were in the habit of abstaining from voting on Church questions because we thought it was not possible to do so conscientiously in presence of the oath we had taken on our admission to the House. He based an argument upon that to show that if you keep this oath as it is, you are strengthening the Church Establishment. Now, Sir, I beg to explain that I do not. think that was the reason which influenced my brother's mind. I believe that my brother was led to take the course simply from a feeling that it would be better taste in him not to vote on such questions. That was the opinion that influenced him; that is the opinion that influences me. But, if one is to be met by arguments of that kind, I, and others who think with me, might look further into the question, in order to see whether we ought not to give our votes on such questions against the view which the hon. and learned Gentleman has attributed to me. I have said I think it better taste for Roman Catholic gentlemen not to interfere in Church questions; but it is obvious that words in this oath are a snare to some honest minds. Is it not very possible, for instance, that I was strengthening the Established Church by voting against church rates? Would it not be better for the Church if the question of church rates were settled? I might have voted against church rates on that ground. But I have never voted against church rates, because I felt it was better taste not to do so. I do think that any Established Church of any country in the world, founded though it be on the law, is still more strongly founded in the hearts, minds, and spiritual interests of those who belong to it, and that without oaths, without legal impediments, without any of those things that bind the consciences of men, you may rely on the true and real establishment of a Church for any country. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it would be better if the wisdom of Parliament would remove whatever may be a snare and is most disagreeable to the feelings of

  1097
  British Gentlemen who give their votes in Parliament with no less loyalty to their Sovereign and no less wish for the prosperity of the Empire than any other Members of this House.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSassured the noble Lord that he had not referred to the motives which influenced his lamented brother or himself from any knowledge of his own. He merely repeated the statement which had been made by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that he could not accept the proposal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington).
  SIR PERCY BURRELL, who rose amid loud cries for a Division, hoped the House would allow him to make a single observation, as he could not give a silent vote on this question. Roman Catholics had been admitted to seats in that House on well-understood conditions, and if the spirit of those conditions were not kept the Parliament of this nation would, no doubt, feel it to be its duty to exclude them.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 126: Majority 67.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee,)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Burke, Sir T. J.

  Adair, H. E.

  Butt, I.

  Adam, W. P.

  Buxton, C.

  Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Bagwell, J.

  Cheetham, J.

  Baines, E.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Baling, hon. A. H.

  Churchill, Lord A. S.

  Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

  Clay, J.

  Baring, T. G.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Bass, M. T.

  Clive, G.

  Bazley, T.

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Beale, S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Collins, T.

  Blake, J. A.

  Corbally, M. E.

  Blencowe, J. G.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Cox, W.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Bowyer, Sir G.

  Dalglish, R.

  Brady, J.

  Davey, R.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Davie, Colonel F.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Bright, J.

  Dent, J. D.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Dickson, Colonel

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Buckley, General

  Douglas, Sir C.

  1098

  Doulton, F.

  M'Mahon, P.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Dunne, M.

  Marsh, M. H.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Martin, J.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Mills, J. R.

  Ennis, J.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Esmonde, J.

  Moncrieff, rt. hon. J.

  Evans, Sir D. L.

  Moor, H.

  Evans, T. W.

  Moore, C.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Morrison, W.

  Fenwick, E. M.

  Murphy, N. D.

  Fenwick, H.

  Neate, C.

  Foley, H. W.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Forster, C.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Forster, W. E.

  O'Ferrall, rt. hon. R. M.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C.M.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  French, Colonel

  Packe, Colonel

  Gavin, Major

  Paget, Lord C.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Palmer, R. W.

  Gilpin, C.

  Pease, H.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Goschen, G. J.

  Peel, J.

  Gower, hon. F. S.

  Pilkington, J.

  Greene, J.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Greville, Colonel F.

  Potter, E.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Potter, T. B.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Powell, J. J.

  Gurdon, B.

  Pritchard, J.

  Gurney, S.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Hadfield, G.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Hanbury, R.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Hankey, T.

  Robertson, H.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Russell, A.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Hassard, M.

  Schneider, H. W.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Scully, V.

  Henderson, J.

  Seely, C.

  Henley, Lord

  Seymour, H. D.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Seymour, W. D.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Smith, J. B.

  Howard, Lord E.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Jackson, W.

  Steel, J.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Stirling, W.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Thompson, H. S.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Kennedy, T.

  Tottenham, Lt.-Col. C. G.

  King, hon. P.J. L.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Laird, J.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Layard, A. H.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Lanigan, J.

  Walter, J.

  Lawson, W.

  Western, S.

  Leader, N. P.

  Westhead, J. P. Brown

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  White, J.

  Lever, J. O.

  White, hon. L.

  Lewis, H.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Winning-ton, Sir T. E.

  Locke, J.

  Woods, H.

  Longfield, R.

  Wyvill, M.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  M'Cann, J.

  TELLERS.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Mackinnon, W. A.

  Castlerosse Viscount

  1099

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Jolliffe, H. H.

  Arbuthnott, hon. Gen. Sir H.

  Jones, D.

  Ker, D. S.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  King, J. K.

  Astell, J. H.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Knox, hon. Major S.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Langton, W. G.

  Bailey, C.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Lee, W

  Beach, Sir M.

  Macaulay, K.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Mackie, J.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Benyon, R.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Beresford, rt. hon. W.

  Mills, A.

  Beresford, D. W. Pack-

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Blackburn, P.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Bremridge, R.

  Mundy, W.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Nicol, W.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  North, Colonel

  Butler, C. S.

  O'Neill, E.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Cartwright, Colonel

  Parker, Major W.

  Cave, S.

  Patten, Colonel W.

  Cobbold J. C.

  Paull, H.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Pevensey, Viscount

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Powell, F. S.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Pryse, E. L.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Rogers, J. J.

  Du Cane, C.

  Rose, W. A.

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Dundas, F.

  Smith, A.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Smith, S. G.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Somes, J.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  Fellowes, E.

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Floyer, J.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Fraser, Sir W. A.

  Taylor, Colonel

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Tite, W.

  Galway, Viscount

  Tollemache, J.

  Gard, R. S.

  Torrens, R.

  Getty, S. G.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Treherne, M.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Grogan, Sir E.

  Vance, J.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Verner, Sir W.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Verner, E. W.

  Hardy, G.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Hardy, J.

  Waldegrave-Leslie, hon. G.

  Hartopp, E. B.

  Harvey, R. B.

  Walker, J. R.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

  Holford, R. S.

  Whitmore, H.

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  TELLERS.

  Ingestre, Viscount

  Lefroy, A.

  Jervis, Capt.

  Newdegate, C.N.

  IRELAND—MAIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the al-
  1100
  terations in the Mail Service between Dublin and the city of Londonderry, as promised by the Postmaster General in the month of March last, will come into operation?
  MR. PEELreplied that the 1st of July next was the day fixed for the commencement of the mail service referred to by the hon. Member.

  COLONIAL BISHOPS—SEE OF RUPERT'S LAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What arrangements have, in compliance with the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, been made with reference to the See of Rupert's Land?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, it was in the knowledge of the House that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had decided against the validity of the jurisdiction conferred by Letters Patent on the Bishops of the colonies having representative institutions, and it was the opinion of the Government, after that decision, that the whole subject of the Letters Patent to the Colonial Bishops ought to be carefully considered, and that in the meantime no Letters ought to be issued to any colonies. It was, however, important that no delay should take place in the appointment of a successor to the Bishop of Rupert's Land. The course, therefore, which had been pursued was that, under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, a letter had been addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to him (Mr. Cardwell), and in consequence of that letter Her Majesty had been pleased to issue a mandate to the Archbishop authorizing him to consecrate a Bishop, but no Letters Patent would be issued purporting to convey jurisdiction conferred by the Crown.

THE FOREIGN OFFICE—AUDIT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any general system of audit for the Foreign Office; whether the Accounts are audited every year; when they were last audited; and whether the Auditor is a person of official responsibility, and acting under official authority?
  MR. LAYARD: In reply to the first

  1101
  question, there was no general system of audit in the Foreign Office. The diplomatic and consular accounts were somewhat complicated. Only a small portion of the money actually expended went through the Foreign Office, and that was the sum expended upon extraordinaries, such as telegraphic messages, messengers, and special missions, amounting to £30,000 or £35,000 a year. As regarded the members of the Consular Service, they were paid by the Paymaster General from lists made up at the Foreign Office, and with the audit of this department the Foreign Office had nothing to do. The accounts of moneys actually expended by the Foreign Office ought to be audited every year, but they were not generally so, as it was very difficult to get in all the accounts, especially those with reference to foreign missions, whilst the messengers' accounts were often in arrear for nearly a whole year. The whole of the accounts of the Foreign Office were audited up to March last year, but they had not been entirely audited up to the end of the financial period this year, because the messengers' accounts had not been received. All those which could be obtained had been audited. As to the question whether the auditor had any official responsibility, and was under official authority, the auditor was the permanent Under Secretary of State, the accounts were made up by the Chief Clerk and forwarded to the Under Secretary, who audited them and sent them back to the Chief Clerk, who then presented himself before one of the Barons of the Exchequer, and declared that the accounts were just and true. This was a system which had existed for a very long period, at the same time the Foreign Office would be glad if the accounts could be audited by the Audit Office; but the accounts were peculiar, and it would be difficult to suggest a satisfactory mode of audit. The Chief Clerk would be much better able to state whether an account relating to expenditure in foreign countries was right or wrong than any person employed by the Audit Office.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a Commission is to be appointed to inquire into the state of the rivers of England, and
  1102
  the best means of remedying the pollution of rivers by mines and factories; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the table a I Copy of the Instructions given to that Commission; and how soon it is expected that the Commission will have completed the inquiry?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, a Commission, consisting of three persons possessing engineering and chymical knowledge, had been appointed to make inquiries in certain districts in which the principal manufactures were carried on upon the subject intimated by the noble Lord. He had no objection to produce a copy of the Commission and also a copy of the Letter of Instruction addressed to the Commissioners, indicating the basis upon which their inquiry should be carried on. It was impossible to say how soon these inquiries would be concluded,

POLICE—HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would now ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Police Constables on duty in the Houses of Parliament, Palaces, and Public Buildings have been removed from the first to the third class; and, if so, for what reason; whether Constables who have been in the Force for as long as twenty or thirty years are similarly treated; whether they are prevented from contributing to the extra pension fund; whether their reduction from the first to the third class will affect the amount of the pension which they will receive; and what class of certificate those who have been reduced from the first to the third class will receive for many years' service in the Government Offices and other Public Buildings?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, in answer to the first part of the question of the noble Lord, he had to state that all the police constables were of equal rank; but, owing to a recent arrangement which had been made for increasing the pay of the police, they were divided into different classes in respect to pay, and the constables employed in the palaces, the Houses of Parliament, and other public buildings continued to receive the same pay as they had received before that arrangement—namely, a guinea a week. He might observe that these men had originally been in the first class as regarded pay,

  1103
  but owing to a change made in 1864 they came into the second class, and in consequence of the recent alteration in pay they now stood in the third class. The reason why the Commissioners had thought it unnecessary to increase the pay of the police employed in the palaces and the Houses of Parliament and other public buildings was, that in addition to their pay they received extra allowances, in some cases amounting to seven shillings a week; so that, taking this into account, they were better paid than any other constables, except those employed on special service. Such of the constables as, if elsewhere, would have received a higher pay under the new regulations, have the option of giving up their employment in the Houses of Parliament; but they preferred to remain there and receive this allowance rather than take other duty and get the pay of a higher class. It might be that constables who had been in the force for twenty or thirty years had found themselves in the position which he had just described. He did not quite understand what was meant by that portion of the noble Lord's Question in which he asked whether they were prevented from contributing to the extra pension fund. He presumed, however, that it alluded to a regulation of August, 1864, defining and explaining what extra allowance should, and what extra allowance should not, count in respect of pension. Without going into details, he might say that those who had been paying on the extra allowance continued to do so; but those constables who entered after a certain date were only to be allowed to subscribe to the superannuation fund according to the amount of their pay, and not in respect of extra allowance. The character of the certificate to a police constable did not depend on the class to which he had belonged, but on his conduct; and therefore the change to which the noble Lord referred would not affect the certificate.

BRITISH GUIANA—COOLIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to the great mortality that has recently occurred among the Coolies in their transport to Demerara, and especially on board the ships Clarence and Earl Russell, and whether anything can be done to render
  1104
  the passage less destructive to life, or so to regulate the Emigration as to hinder persons being embarked who are not in sound health?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that his attention had been directed to the case of three ships, on board which, while on their passage from Calcutta to British Guiana, between the months of November and January, there had been an unusual mortality among Coolies. Two of those ships were the Clarence and the Earl Russell. An inquiry had been instituted at British Guiana by the authorities there, who reported that they found nothing in the ships themselves or in their diet or management to account for that mortality. The disease originated in Calcutta. The Governor attributed it to a deposit of matter left by the inundations caused by the cyclone which had done such serious damage at Calcutta. An inquiry was going on at Calcutta respecting this matter. He was glad to say that, probably owing to the sanitary precautions taken at Calcutta, and on board the ships, the general mortality had been decreasing of late years.

  NEW ZEALAND—SEPARATION OF PROVINCES—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask, Whether the Government have come to any decision on the Petition from Auckland, praying for a separation of the Northern Province from the other Province of New Zealand?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied that he had not received the promised Report of the Governor on the subject of the petition from Auckland, praying for the separation of the Northern and Southern Provinces of New Zealand. The Government would not come to any final decision until that Report was received; but, as at present advised, they saw no reason to give any encouragement to such a proposal.

  LEEDS BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTEE. —COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
  Sir Francis Baring reported from the General Committee of Elections; That in pursuance of the Order of the House, they had nominated the following five Members to constitute the Select Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court:—EDWARD CHRISTOPHER EGERTON, esquire, THOMAS WILLIAM EVANS, esquire, EDWARD HOWES, esquire,

  1105
  Colonel the hon. E. G. DOUGLAS PENNANT, HENRY HUSSEY VIVIAN, esquire; and had also named The LORD ADVOCATE and WILLIAM BOVILL, esquire, to serve on the Select Committee, to examine witnesses, but without the power of voting.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House at rising do adjourn till Thursday next."—(Viscount Palmerston.)
COLONIAL DEFENCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the understanding between the Home Government and Colonics possessing Representative Institutions as to the defence of those Colonies in the event of any future war? This was a subject of great importance, and he hoped he should obtain a satisfactory answer, for he found that the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope had persuaded or compelled the Kaffirs to occupy and colonize some territory on the other side of the River Kei. This was an act totally unconnected with the Colonial Legislature—it was not their policy and they had nothing to do with it. In reply to a Question he asked the right hon. Gentleman last night, he said that the responsibility of defending the Capo Colony had fallen on this country, and that the colony contributed very little to the expenses of that defence. The light hon. Gentleman also said that the Governor in offering a settlement to the Kaffirs was acting under instructions from homo, and that it involved no complications and no possibilities likely to lead to war. He was glad to hoar that, but some of the colonists were of a different opinion—they thought it would lead to war, and some of them were no doubt anxious it should. But the policy of this country with regard to the colonies ought to be such as would throw all the responsibility of such complications upon the Colonial Legislature, which held to the Queen only a nominal allegiance, and did not acknowledge the control of this House. They must all recollect that they already had had several disastrous affairs in the Cape Colony, and that the last Kaffir war was exceedingly burdensome to this country, was conducted
  1106
  with unheard-of cruelties on the part of the natives, and cost a great deal of money, the expenditure of which was of no benefit except to contractors. Under such circumstances as these, considering the disinterested position in which we stood as between the Natives and the colonists, we ought to take care that if war did arise the colonists should be bound to bear the whole burden of it, and that if we give any help it should be of a voluntary character instead of being cast upon us by the policy of our own Governor. He hoped that some understanding had been clearly laid down between the colony and the mother country as to the future. They heard a good deal of the loyalty of the colonists, but he appreciated that sort of loyalty which would stand the test of taxation.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was sorry his hon. Friend was not satisfied with the explanation which he gave last night, and the more so as be appeared to have entirely misunderstood one of the propositions contained in that explanation. His hon. Friend seemed to have understood that he laid down as a proposition that the expenses of any future Kaffir wars should be defrayed mainly by this country, and that the colony should bear but a small proportion of them. What he stated was much to the contrary. When his hon. Friend put his Question to him last evening, he (Mr. Cardwell) referred his hon. Friend to the papers laid on the table during the present Session, showing that the Governor, acting under instructions from home, had been taking those measures best calculated to prevent the risk of a Kaffir war by limiting our possessions to the Kei, and by offering to the Kaffirs territory for settlement there, and thus giving them cause for contentment, and diminishing the risk of war. His hon. Friend must also know that in the course of the present Session an Act of Parliament had been passed for the purpose of including the Territory of British Kaffraria within the Territory of the Cape Colony, one of the reasons adduced for which was that it would be more natural to call upon the Cape Colony to contribute a fair share of the expenditure under the new arrangement than under the old. He was not prepared to agree with his hon. Friend that, as a matter of course, the placing of Native affairs more and more under the control of representative institutions in which the Natives had no share, was the best means of preventing these difficulties with the Natives. That

  1107
  must be a matter of judgment under all the I circumstances. If his hon. Friend would refer to the papers laid upon the table during the present Session, he would see that it had been the earnest desire, both of the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope and the Home Government, to avoid all extension of territory, to choose that frontier best calculated to avert risk of war, and the most easily defensible in the case of war, and to make those friendly arrangements with the Kaffir tribes which would give them just cause of contentment and peace.
  COLONEL FRENCHinquired whether, in the event of the Motion for the adjournment of the House being agreed to, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would undertake to keep a House during the remainder of the night, as there were several very important Motions on the Notice Paper?

UNITED STATES—THE "ALABAMA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As some misapprehension was caused by the answer of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) the other night, to a question put by the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh) I wish to ask, Whether the communication which the noble Lord said had been received from the United States Government, with respect to the losses caused by the Alabama and other similar vessels, is in any way contradictory in tenour and spirit to Mr. Adams's despatch of October, 1863, in which he stated that, in order to preserve amity and friendship between the two countries, he was instructed by his Government to postpone any question which might arise with reference to the depredations of the Alabama to some future time, when it could be discussed with calmness. And I also wish to ask, whether that communication was dated before or after the accession of President Johnson.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion—that communications have been going on between the two Governments for a considerable time past with regard to the captures made by the Alabama and other ships of the same kind. My hon. Friend wishes to know whether, in a recent communication, the identical words are repeated which were contained in any former one. I am not aware that the identical words are used; but the general tenour of the communication is
  1108
  the same, and refers to the same matters as the previous communications, a certain portion of which have been laid before Parliament, and are now on the table of the House. My hon. Friend asks whehether the last communication was made since the accession of President Johnson. It was made here since that time; but whether the instructions upon which it was made were issued by President Lincoln or President Johnson, I cannot inform you.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I understood the noble Lord at the head of the Government to say that the former demands on the subject of the Alabama had been conveyed in a correspondence, of which a portion had been laid before Parliament. I wish to ask the noble Lord, what are the dates, or at least what is the approximate period of the correspondence relating to the demands on account of the Alabama which has not been laid before Parliament?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am unable to answer off-hand the question of the noble Lord.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Is it not possible, in a case of such considerable importance, for the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs or some other person on behalf of the Government to give a more explicit answer to the Question which has been put by the hon. Member, because the fact is one of very considerable importance. There seems to be an impression abroad—I believe an unfounded impression—that since the accession of President Johnson claims with regard to the Alabama have been made in a different spirit from that in which they were made formerly. I rather gather from the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) that he is not altogether satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It is of importance that the mind of the country should be set at rest upon this subject; and if it be the case, as I believe it is, that no fresh feature has been introduced into the claims on account of the Alabama within these few months, I hope the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to state that distinctly.
  MR. LAYARD: The case is very simple. The original demand was that contained in papers which have been laid on the table of the House last year, or at the end of the previous Session. Whenever cases have arisen, whether solitary or otherwise, of vessels captured by the Alabama and other ships of that nation, Mr. Adams, in putting forward the claim in each par-

  1109
  ticular case, has reiterated the original claim almost in the same words. A short time ago, in a Note which reached Her Majesty's Government before the death of President Lincoln, that demand was incidentally renewed in words almost identical with the original claim. That is the state in which the case rests at present. There has been no fresh demand, neither has the claim been withdrawn. The demands which have been made of late are continuations of the original demand.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT (1861).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. MOFFATT, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Act of 1861, and the existing state of the Laws in regard to Debtor and Creditor; and to move, that, in the opinion of this House, the Report of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Act of 1861 deserves the prompt and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, said, that on the former occasion on which this subject was before the House, when the discussion came to a somewhat untimely end, he showed by documents which were before the House the existence of a state of things which fully warranted the complaints which were made on all sides. The affairs of bankruptcy appeared to have always been dealt with in the most unsatisfactory manner for the commercial interests of the country. The state of things previous to the passing of the Act of 1861 was bad enough, but he believed that there was no man who would not gladly return to it rather than maintain the existing law. In the three years previous to 1860 the number of bankruptcies was about 1,200 in each year, the debts proved averaged £5,100,000, and the moneys collected £1,300,000—a sum equivalent to about 5s. in the pound; this it was true was diminished by official charges and by misappropriations, which were described by Sir Richard Bethell in the present Parliament as the "scandal and abomination," of the Act then in force. Under the Act now in force the number of bankruptcies had risen from 1,200 to nearly 7,500 annually; and in from 5,000 to 6,000 of these cases the insolvents were allowed to escape without paying any dividend, while
  1110
  the cost of whitewashing these insolvents was paid by the State. The first point with creditors connected with commerce always was to avoid an appeal to the Bankruptcy Court; this indisposition to resort to that Court became an engine in the hands of the debtor for the dictation of the terms upon which he would compound his debts. The result was that there had sprung into existence a practice so tinged with fraud that it might fairly be termed a fraudulent system. When a man found it convenient to stop payment he placed his affairs in the hands of an accountant or solicitor, who prepared a circular, which the insolvent signed, informing his creditors of the circumstance, and referring them to these gentlemen for further particulars. Attorneys and accountants were generally honourable men, who would not knowingly make a false statement; but they took exactly what they found upon the insolvent's books, and from them prepared a statement which they laid before the creditors. It was impossible to get any creditor to investigate these accounts merely that he might obtain a larger dividend for himself in common with sixty or seventy other creditors, and the consequence was that the greatest facilities were afforded for fraudulent insolvencies. Last week insolvencies were announced in the public papers to the amount of £5,500,000, and of none of these would anything be heard again. They would commence with a promise to pay 10 s. or 15 s. in the pound, which would gradually dwindle down to 2s., 3s., or 4s. in the pound. The explanation was to be found in the existing state of the law. A Committee of that House had inquired into the law, and had recommended the abolition of the machinery of the present bankruptcy system and the substitution of a system somewhat similar to that which now existed in Scotland, placing the affairs of the insolvent very much in the hands of the creditors, and establishing a machinery by which estates could be worked without the delays which had resulted from the joint action of the official and creditors' assignees. It had also recommended the abolition of arrest for debt, and the curtailing of the facilities that insolvents now enjoyed for obtaining certificates. He desired to know whether the Government intended to adopt the recommendations of the Committee, and to take measures for the remedy of a state of affairs which was injurious to mercantile interests and discreditable to the Legislature of the coun-

  1111
  try. The hon. Gentleman concluded by I moving that, in the opinion of this House, the Report of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Act of 1861 deserves the prompt and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. AYRTON, in seconding the Motion, said, that on a more favourable occasion he should have felt it his duty to present to the House fully and completely the Resolutions at which the Committee upon this subject had arrived; but as his hon. Friend had now been almost as unfortunate in his selection of a night as he was when the matter was last before the House, he would confine himself to the statement that the changes proposed by those Resolutions were of so fundamental a character, and would so affect almost every section of the statute now in force, that it would be impossible to carry them into effect by any mere amending Act, and that it would be necessary to give effect to the concluding Resolution, and introduce an independent Bill for the amendment and consolidation of the law. It could scarcely be expected that the Government would during the short time which remained of the present Session pass any comprehensive measure on the subject, but he hoped the Attorney General would be able to assure the House that it would receive their serious consideration, with a view to legislation when the new Parliament met. Meantime he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That in the opinion of this House, the Report of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Act of 1861 deserves the prompt and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.—(Mr. Moffatt.)
  MR. BASSthanked the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Moffatt) for the constancy which he had displayed in bringing the state of our bankruptcy law under the notice of the House. The question was one which was at the present moment of the greatest interest to the mercantile community. Of course it would be impossible to carry a Bill with respect to it in the present Session; but then the Lord Chancellor, who was as familiar with the subject as with his morning and evening prayers, might without the slightest effort produce a measure which might be laid on the table of the House before the dissolution, and considered by the country during the recess. He hoped, he might add, that the Attorney General would, before the
  1112
  Session came to a close, make some explanation to the House as to the principle on which, in his opinion, the Government ought to act in effecting any alteration in the existing bankruptcy system.
  MR. BEECROFTsaid, that he believed that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House agreed that the present law of bankruptcy was most unsatisfactory. In the Session of 1860 the Government introduced a comprehensive measure for the reform of the law of bankruptcy. Its principle met with general approval; but, though opposed by no one, it did not reach the Upper House. When the House met, the year after, they all supposed that a Bill which had met with so much support would be among the first to he introduced at the commencement of the new Session, and that all parties would unite in perfecting its details. They were all disappointed when they found that the Consolidated Bill was abandoned, and a sort of patchwork Amendment Bill substituted for it. They found, however, that they had Hobson's choice—that or none. That Bill passed with some Amendments. It repealed part of the old law, and altered other parts; amended some clauses, and left others untouched. No course could be taken more likely to lead to confusion and difference of decision; and he heard from those engaged in the administration of it that the law was thrown into such a state of inextricable confusion that some parts of it were really rendered very difficult of interpretation. He scarcely need say that the commercial community was very much dissatisfied with the present law and practice of bankruptcy. A very strong feeling of dissatisfaction generally prevailed, and a thorough change in the entire system was loudly called for; indeed, there were few questions affecting the trading classes of greater importance. He might say that the Leeds Chamber of Commerce was against any attempt merely to amend the law, or any change which would leave the winding up of insolvent estates in the hands of any court or body of officials whatever, and was as decidedly in favour of leaving such winding-up in the hands of the creditors; and that no change would be satisfactory or prevent further agitation of the question which did not altogether take out of the hands of officials the winding-up of bankrupt estates, and transfer it to the creditors themselves, as was the case in Scotland. In fact, what the Leeds Chamber of Commerce really wanted was, that

  1113
  the insolvent should be in the Court and the estate out of Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had no difficulty whatever in stating, as he had stated before, that the Government would undoubtedly recognize the duty of taking into prompt and serious consideration the Report of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Acts. He was glad to find that, so far as he had had the opportunity of ascertaining, so many hon. Members concurred in some of the most important recommendations of that Committee. The Committee were quite agreed in the opinion that it was desirable no longer to attempt to patch up a system which had been found not to answer, but that there should be a serious endeavour made to revise, as far as possible, both its principle and its details, and to place them on such a footing as would afford some reasonable ground that we should understand the system on which we were going to proceed in future, and start with a favourable expectation of its success. The Committee had recommended substantially that for which the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Beecroft) contended for, with regard to the taking insolvent estates out of the hands of the Court so far as related to the mere collection and distribution of assets, while they had also made the important recommendation that imprisonment for debt should be abolished; but at the same time, and as a necessary sequel to that alteration, that the discharge given to a bankrupt or insolvent debtor should not at once operate, except on the payment of a dividend of a certain amount. They also proposed to remove from the Bankruptcy Court all cognizance of fraudulent acts and to transfer such matters to the ordinary Courts. These were material alterations, and he mentioned them on the present occasion, not for the purpose of entering into a vindication of their merits, hut in order that the attention of the public out of doors might be directed to their consideration. If Parliament were to do anything useful, as he hoped it would in a future Session, it must proceed on the two grounds of endeavouring to consolidate the whole law and of securing the support of public opinion as to those important principles which it was proposed to introduce for the first time into the new system. It was indispensably necessary that the Government in dealing with the subject should be in the possession of the views of the mercantile community upon
  1114
  it, because it would be useless to endeavour to carry a measure which failed to commend itself to their approval. He trusted, therefore, that before the House met again after the recess the attention of mercantile men would be carefully directed to the Report of the Committee, and that there would be a very general expression of opinion upon the question.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the mercantile community would receive the statement just made with great satisfaction. He hoped that a measure would be prepared ready for the energies of the new Parliament, and if this were so, then their thanks, which were now due to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Moffatt), would be transferred to the Government. He was sure that the appeal of the Attorney General to the commercial classes would be fully answered, and that the question would be amply discussed by them before the next Session. He agreed that the present system must be entirely re-cast, and he believed that the trading community would be glad to learn that it would not be attempted to patch up the present system, I but that a new one would be introduced to; remedy abuses that were now a disgrace to legislation.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Report of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Act of 1861 deserves the prompt and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.—(Mr. Moffatt.)

  LUNACY LAW.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEATEthen rose to call the attention of the House to some defects in the law relating to lunatics, both with respect to the administration of that law and its provisions, and to move an address for copy of any Returns now in possession of Government as to English subjects now in confinement in lunatic asylums abroad. The hon. Gentleman said the subject was one which had very recently been prominently brought under public notice, in consequence of the case of Mary Ryan, who had been forcibly removed from this country, and was proceeding, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Inclosure (No. 2) * (135); Smoke Nuisances (Scotland) Acts Amendment* (136).
Second Reading—Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland) * (118); Dogs Regulation (Ireland) (129).
Select Committee—Report—Sewage Utilization * (80).
Committee—Parsonages * (137).
Report—War Department Tramway (Devon) * [H.L.]; Clerical Subscription (132.)
Third Reading—Companies Workmens' Education (131); County Voters Registration* (116); County of Sussex* (114), and passed.

IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ABYSSINIA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given him notice, relative to the Abyssinian prisoners; and he was induced, to do so in consequence of an article that had appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette, but principally in order that if possible the relatives of those unhappy persons might obtain some satisfactory or at least authentic information about them. The article to which he referred was published in The Pall Mall Gazette on the 25th May, and Was in the following terms:—
  "We briefly announced yesterday that intelligence had been received from Massowah up to the 28th April. To-day we are enabled to give a few details respecting the unfortunate captives. These details are communicated in a letter from Mr. Fladd, at Gaffat, who writes very discouragingly of the present condition and prospects of the prisoners. It appears that King Theodorus, after experiencing a reverse in Shoa, came in haste to Magdala, procured reinforcements and guns, and returned to that country. While at Magdala he spoke harshly to the prisoners, and before leaving ordered a change for the worse in their treatment. Mr. Fladd's letter is dated March 16, and contains the following extract from a note addressed to him by Mr. Stern:—As it appears that they have quite forgotten us in Europe, nothing remains for us but to prepare ourselves for the worst—a miserable death.'"
  Under these circumstances he wished to ask the noble Earl, What was the date of the latest intelligence he had received from Abyssinia, and what was the account then given of the condition of the prisoners? He also wished to know whether Mr. Rassam still continued at Massowah, or contemplated returning to Aden; probably also the noble Earl would not object to inform him whether any steps had been taken to send any other mission for the purpose of approaching the Emperor; and, if so, whether it would be accompanied by any presents?
  EARL RUSSELLwas understood to say, that the latest accounts received from Abyssinia by Her Majesty's Government were up to the 28th April, when Mr. Rassam wrote that he had sent several messengers to the Emperor, and that the
  1044
  rumours of additional hardships imposed upon the prisoners did not appear to be well founded. At that date Mr. Rassam was still waiting to fulfil his mission.
  LORD CHELMSFORDasked whether, if further information reached the Foreign Office, there would be any objection to communicate it?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he would communicate the information, but not the source from whence it came.

DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND).

  (NO. 127.) SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to regulate the keeping of dogs and for the protection of sheep and other property in Ireland from dogs; this purpose the Bill proposed to accomplish by requiring the owner of any dog to take out a licence in the petty sessions of the district in which he may reside. The licence would be 2s. for each dog yearly; and there would be a further registration fee of 6d. The money arising from these fees was to be applied in the first instance to defray the cost and expenses of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Registrar, and the surplus was to be handed over to the county or borough treasurer to be applied in aid of the borough and county rates. From the multitude of dogs in Ireland it was calculated that the licence would produce upwards of £20,000 annually, and as the expenses of working the Act would be very small, the relief to the cess-payers would be considerable.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Steward.)
  THE EARL OF CORKsaid, there could be no greater nuisance than that of dogs in Ireland, and therefore he approved the principle of this Bill; but, at the same time, he feared that what was everybody's business would in this case be found to be nobody's business. When a similar Bill was introduced on a former occasion, one of the clauses provided that inspectors and sub-inspectors of police should act as prosecutors in cases where dogs had not been duly registered, whereas this Bill merely enacted registration, but provided no means of enforcing penalties in case of neglect. He gave notice that when the Bill went into Committee he should move a clause giving power to the police to prosecute for non-registration.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

COMPANIES WORKMEN'S EDUCATION BILL—(No. 131.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he desired to remove a misapprehension that prevailed in some quarters that the object of the Bill was to force Church education upon railway companies. That was a mistake. His whole contention was that railway companies were to receive nothing from that House beyond permission to do their duty, leaving it to them to decide in what manner they should perform it.
  Bill read 3a
  An Amendment made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL.

  (NO. 132.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he wished to call attention to the last paragraph of the declaration to be made in reference to the use of the Book of Common Prayer. He objected to the words "none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority," and he would leave the declaration as it stood ending with the words, "In public prayer and administration of the Sacraments I will use the form in the same Book prescribed." This was a measure of peace, and he should very much regret that any dissension should be created by the insertion of words in the declaration which might arouse scruples. They would get rid of all difficulties by excluding the words to which he objected. He hoped the noble Earl would consider this matter before the third reading.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should be very unwilling to make any change in the form of declaration as it had been framed by the Commissioners after due and careful consideratiion.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he thought the words "lawful authority" required some definition. If there was any "law-
  1046
  ful authority" his suggestion would not interfere with it.
  EARL STANHOPEdesired to point out that the words objected to were not intended to provide for any alteration in the ordinary Liturgy, but to meet such cases as thanksgivings and other special services. As the matter at present stood, some clergymen scrupled to use any prayers which were not provided in the Liturgy. The "lawful authority" was the Queen in Council, and there could be no real objection to the words.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHpointed out that the meaning of the latter portion of the declaration was in reality "except so far as shall be occasionally ordered by lawful authority."
  LORD REDESDALEthought that the words "none other" were very important, and very necessary to be retained in the declaration.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that the words had been inserted in the declaration with the desire to afford relief to the consciences of some of the clergy, and that this would be done by the retention of the words. The declaration had been very carefully considered and framed by the Commissioners, and he hoped that their Lordships would not allow them to be rejected.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there could be no difficulty in acquiescing in these words, if their Lordships observed what was the existing "lawful authority." At present there was no lawful authority, except that of Parliament, to make any change in the Book of Common Prayer. But there was a lawful authority—namely, the Queen in Council, which could add to the Liturgy special prayers and thanksgivings for particular occasions. The exception objected to referred to this lawful authority. There could be no difficulty in allowing it to remain as a part of the declaration.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, as a Member of the Commission, desired to say that when the words were recommended by that body, the Commissioners believed that they were doing good service to many clergymen who at present were perplexed by scruples in regard to the use of special services. The Commissioners had certainly made no express mention of the power of the Queen in Council to add prayers to the Liturgy on special occasions; but they

  1047
  certainly expected, that when the subject should be considered by Parliament some attempt would be made to define the meaning of the words "lawful authority," or, at all events, to enumerate the cases which might be regarded as exceptions. Some such course might still be adopted, and the objections of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford), for which there was some foundation, might then be removed.
  LORD CHELMSFORDintimated that he should not press his objection at present, but would prefer that the matter should be further discussed on the third reading.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdesired to draw attention to the ninth clause of the Bill, which appeared to him to be initiating a new feature in legislation, and which was not strictly mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners. Up to this time of the declarations and subscriptions made by the clergy, some rested upon the authority of Convocations with the assent and license of the Crown, and some rested upon the authority of Acts of Parliament. Generally speaking, the declarations rested upon the authority of Acts of Parliament, and the subscriptions upon canonical enactments of Convocations with the assent of the Crown. They were now trying to bring these two classes of enactments and these two authorities into one hand. But if this ninth clause should be agreed to, it would be a new limitation of the power of Convocations, and therefore he would propose, if Her Majesty's Government had no objection, to add the words "saving and excepting the rights of the Convocations of the two Provinces in any way." If, however, there were any real objection, he would not press his Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the clause was framed in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, and he hoped, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFdesired to remind their Lordships that the Bill before them was substantially a measure of relief; and, as the noble Earl the President of the Council had described it, of peace and conciliation. He did not doubt that Her Majesty's Government, in advising the issuing of the Commission, had been influenced by the opinions expressed
  1048
  in the House of Commons and elsewhere as to the multiplicity of the oaths and subscriptions required to be taken. He concurred in the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners, but regretted that on one important point deeply affecting the Church, though it was understood that considerable discussion had taken place on the point, no recommendation had been made by the Commissioners. He was anxious to know the reasons which had induced the Commissioners to leave untouched the present oath of supremacy. The words which he proposed to omit might be omitted on the ground that they were altogether unnecessary. By the very first word of the declaration proposed by this Bill every clergyman was required to declare his assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and one of these was that the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in the realm of England; and, therefore, he really and substantially assented to everything to which his assent was required by the oath of supremacy, only that the Article limited the matter to jurisdiction, whereas the oath of supremacy declared that no foreign prince, &c, had, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within the realm. Jurisdiction, he presumed, meant that which could be enforced in Courts of Law. But the very multiplicity of terms in the oath of supremacy created an objection. Now, he proposed to omit from the oath of supremacy the words relating to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in this country. An oath ought not to convey to the person taking it that it expressed that which was false. Such oaths tended to sap the foundations of public morality, and to destroy eventually the security for which they were proposed. His objections to the oath were two—first, that it conveyed not only to scrupulous but to intelligent persons an impression that it stated what was not true; secondly, that its terms were not clear and unambiguous, as all terms in oaths ought to be. Of late years the alterations in the law affecting Roman Catholics had greatly altered the relation between them and Protestants—indeed, by the Act of 1829 this very oath of supremacy had been changed in favour of the Roman Catholics. It was on the assumption that the Pope had ecclesiastical jurisdiction that the A postolical Letter had been issued portioning out England into different dioceses, followed by the letter of Cardinal

  1049
  Wiseman. Now, the question was whether, when they came to consider the oaths, declarations, and subscriptions taken by the clergy, they ought not to take these facts into consideration. The question was whether, when doubts existed on the subject, it was not advisable to revise the oath, so as to remove these doubts, and make it clear what the Legislature intended. He did not wish to sweep away the oath altogether, but he proposed the omission from the clause "hath or ought to have any spiritual power or jurisdiction within this realm," of the words "hath or." These words had caused all the difficulty.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the right rev. Prelate would not press his Amendment. No doubt scruples had been felt with regard to this oath. At the same time, authoritative declarations had been made by eminent Prelates and lawyers as to the mode in which this oath ought to be construed; and those declarations had been very generally received as satisfactory. It might deserve consideration whether the oath of supremacy should not be altered; but it was not desirable to change the oath of supremacy to be taken by the clergy, leaving the laity to take it as it stood. If altered at all it ought to be altered in a separate Act, applicable to everybody who took the oath. Again, it was desirable that this Bill should go down to the other House representing exactly the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and he appealed to the right rev. Prelate on these two grounds to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSopposed the Amendment on much stronger grounds than those stated by the noble Earl. The right rev. Prelate proposed to strike out one or two apparently very innocent words; but they happened to be the very pith, marrow, and substance of the oath. They were levelled at all usurped authority, and were a positive denial that any foreign Prince had or ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm. Strike out the words "hath or" and you only put the case hypothetically, or as a matter of opinion, that no foreign Prince ought to have such jurisdiction. It was a settled matter of law, and did not rest upon supposition. When they saw the Pope claiming a right to exercise a jurisdiction in this country, as was the case when the kingdom was parcelled out, were they to sweep away the landmarks by which their liberties were conserved? Was it because
  1050
  the Pope's authority had been claimed or exercised here contrary to law, that they wore no longer to declare on oath what the law actually was? The law declared, and all men were bound by it, that no foreign Prince, Power, or Potentate "hath or ought" to have any jurisdiction in this country, and by that declaration they should stand.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, he had been rather expressing the scruples of other persons than his own; but, knowing that those scruples existed, and that this Bill was intended for the relief of scrupulous consciences, he had felt it his duty to bring the subject forward. He hoped that some day or other the difficulties he had pointed out might be wholly removed, but meanwhile he should withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved the insertion of a clause extending the operation of the Act to the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark, and to the Isle of Man, so as to render the subscription the same in all parts of the diocese.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE EARL OF POWISasked in what position this Bill would place the colonial clergy? Would they be compellable to take the oaths which this Bill abolished? Their Lordships had seen from the recent judgment of the Judicial Committee how much doubt existed with regard to the position of the colonial Church, and it was desirable that no doubt should exist whether this Bill would apply to the clergy in the colonies.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it would require more time than he could spend, and perhaps greater effort than he could employ, to render the judgment of the Privy Council intelligible to the noble Earl. But the other question raised by him was more intelligible, and might be answered more easily. The Bill related to clergy ordained within the precincts of Great Britain and Ireland and the Channel Islands. It would have no application to clergymen in the colonies, unless they were ordained in this country.
  Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 138).
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.