communion, is worthy of the consideration of this House." His speech in support of this amendment embraced a great variety of topics, some of them new to the debate upon the question.

Mr. Sotheron Estcourt recommended Mr. Griffith, as he had had a full opportunity of explaining his views, to withdraw his resolution, which could lead to no substantial result.

After some discussion, Mr. Griffith acceded to this course.

Mr. A. B. Hope then moved to defer the second reading of the Bill for six months. The cry against church-rates, he said, came from a divided and composite party: the demand for the total abolition of the rates he traced to a political organization, which employed it as a means to an end-the destruction of church property. He reviewed the objections to the existing system of raising the rates, and suggested remedies, including the exemption of Dissenters, protesting against all schemes which involved spoliation.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. Deedes, who wished, he said, on the one hand, to afford to Nonconformists the relief to which they considered themselves entitled, and, on the other, to secure to Churchmen the power to carry out what they regarded as a salutary mode of maintaining the fabric of the church.

Mr. Osborne regretted that the time for compromise upon this subject had gone by. It was no reason, however, for refusing to do justice because certain parties rejected all compromise, and had ulterior objects. He was prepared to debate the question as to the legality of the tax, which

was, he asserted, in its origin, voluntary. But was the existing state of the law, he asked, satisfactory? What was the use of maintaining it when, as he believed, there was no danger to the fabrics of churches? We had the example of Scotland before us, and the parishes in England. where no church-rates were levied, yet where the churches were kept in perfect repair.

Mr. S. Wortley said he had always contended against a total abolition of church-rates, and been anxious for a compromise; but he thought that all attempts either at commutation or compromise were now hopeless. The decision upon Mr. Walpole's Bill was a declaration that this fester would yield to no remedy but absolute extinction. We had come to a state of things when the existing law could not be maintained without injury to the Church as well as the community. After much deliberation, he had arrived at the conclusion to vote for the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Sidney Herbert said he would not discuss the history of church-rates, or whether they were legal or illegal. These rates had altered their character immensely within the last few years; since a majority in the parish could decide whether there should be a church-rate or not, the whole question had changed. The present state of things, in his opinion, would be preferable to that which would be brought about if Mr. Walpole's Bill had passed. He was not, therefore, in a hurry to alter the law. Not all who opposed church-rates were Dissenters; the rates were resisted from the common antipathy to a tax. The Bill proposed to re

move an injustice to Dissenters, and its effect certainly would be to relieve Dissenters; but how would Churchmen stand? The real truth was, that the Church of England was parochial in the country and congregational in towns. The nearest approach to an equitable adjustment of this question was the proposal of Sir A. Elton, and he would urge that every place and parish should be allowed to determine for itself, which would put an end to all dissension. Unless some such change was introduced into the Bill, he must vote against the second reading.

After speeches from Mr. Packe and Lord John Manners against the second reading of the Bill, and Mr. Greenwood in favour of it, Sir J. Trelawny replied; and a division took place, when the second reading was carried by 242 to 168.

The Ministerial crisis which followed prevented any further proceeding with the Bill.

An important question, affecting the principles of religious liberty, was mooted on the 24th of February by Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, who had been Attorney-General for Ireland under Lord Palmerston's Administration. It related to the oath taken by Roman Catholic members of Parliament under the provisions of the 10 Geo. IV. c. 7 (the Catholic Relief Act). The object of Mr. Fitzgerald was to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the omission of the words inserted in that oath, which were designed for the special security of the Established Church, and to the placing of Roman Catholics on the same footing with regard to the oath to be taken by them as

Sir

other members of Parliament. Having read and commented upon the terms of the oath prescribed by the statute, and having suggested the motives which, as he believed, had induced Robert Peel in 1829 to introduce them into the oath, the honourable and learned gentleman contended that some of these restrictions were degrading and insulting, others wholly unnecessary and futile. With respect to that part of the oath which disclaimed any design to subvert the present Church Establishment, he adverted to the difficulty of putting a construction upon it, and insisted upon the exposition of the passage given by Sir Robert Peel, who declared that there was no intention to fetter Roman Catholics in the exercise of their privileges in that House. In the Bill he desired to introduce the terms of the oath to be substituted for the present oath would correspond with those of the oath proposed in 1854. In urging that the supposed securities contained in the present oath-which had been done away with in our colonial dependencies-were superfluous, he dwelt upon the tried loyalty of Roman Catholics in all stations, upon the unflinching gallantry of our Roman Catholic soldiers, and upon the testimony borne by Lord Eglintoun to the character of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland; and he claimed, on behalf of the Roman Catholic members of that House, the right to be placed upon terms of perfect equality with other members.

Mr. Fagan seconded the mo

tion.

Mr. Adams regretted that a

motion should be brought forward calculated like this to disturb the harmony which now subsisted between the Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ireland. His ground of opposition to the motion was shortly this:-He believed that there had been a perfectly well understood compact and agreement upon which the settlement of 1829 was based. This proposal would interfere with that compact, and he believed it would be a breach of faith.

Mr. C. Fortescue, as an Irish Protestant, concurred in the motion. He denied that the proposition was the breach of any bargain, or a violation of faith. He maintained that the Roman Catholics had a right to come to Parliament to be relieved from an oath the terms of which were offensive. No one could believe that the imposition of this miserable and insulting oath really added to the security of the Protestant Government or the Protestant religion.

Mr. Whiteside said, in common with Mr. Adams, he regretted sincerely the introduction of a motion calculated to revive discussions which it would be the wisest course for Roman Catholics to surrender to oblivion. In reply to those who urged that this oath was no security, he showed that Mr. Plunkett, the great advocate of the Roman Catholics, relied upon the oath as the best argument for their admission into Parliament. The opinions of Sir R. Peel, he observed, were not to guide the House upon this question; it was not what Sir R. Peel thought, but what Parliament had done; yet Sir R. Peel had, like Mr. VOL. CI.

Plunkett, offered the oath as one of the securities which the Roman Catholics were prepared to give, and which he believed would be binding upon conscientious men. The oath had been accepted by the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who, after the Relief Act, had declared that the Parliament which had enacted the oath was entitled to the reverence and love of Roman Catholics.

Lord J. Russell said the view he took of this question was not the same as Mr. Fitzgerald's; but, as a member of the Legislature, he wished the House to consider whether it ought not from time to time to revise oaths, and see if any contained passages insulting to any party, and which might be removed without impairing any security. The House had acted last year upon that principle, and had relieved the Jews from the obligation of taking a part of the oath. Compact or no compact, the House was not fettered; if there had been a compact there was nothing to prevent the Legislature from altering the oath if it saw fit. This oath was not taken by all members; if it be necessary in order to guard the Established Church let every member take it. The House might depend upon it that if the Church establishment was subverted, it would not be by the votes of Roman Catholics, but by the votes of Protestants who held the voluntary principle, and that all endowments were unscriptural and wrong.

Mr. Newdegate, in replying to Lord J. Russell, reminded him of the incidents connected with the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and [E)

warned him, as the spirit which prompted the attempt at which that measure was aimed was not extinct, against casting aside a safeguard of which Roman Catholics had, he said, no right to complain.

Mr. Maguire said he was ready to swear allegiance to the Crown, but why should he be obliged to swear against what was contrary to law and to truth? He denied that there had been any compact; but suppose there had been, the Legislature was not to be bound by what took place 30 years ago. Lord Claude Hamilton complained that he had been misrepresented by Mr. Fitzgerald with reference to a transaction in 1853.

Mr. Walpole said, if the House were devising a new form of oath it was possible that a better form might be suggested; but the question was whether there was any good reason to alter a form imposed in 1829. Unless there was a strong reason for altering it, there would be an alarm created in the Protestant mind of the people of this country, and the inference would be that

something was wished to be done that could not now be done. For the sake of peace, and the settlement of a great question, he hoped the House would not think it expedient to go into Committee.

Mr. Vernon Smith supported the motion. The question, he said, had been re-opened last year, when the oath was altered to admit the Jews.

Mr: Spooner insisted that the oath was part and parcel of the bargain of 1829.

Mr. Fitzgerald replied; and upon a division the House decided to go into Committee upon the oath by a majority of 122 to 113. The same honourable gentleman afterwards moved for leave to bring in a Bill to substitute an oath for that now required to be taken by Roman Catholics. The House again

divided on this motion as follows:Ayes Noes

Majority

120 . 105

15

No further steps were taken in the matter during this session.