nection with the case of the Misses M'Carthy, and which letter the hon. and learned Member had not referred to in the nunneries debate "What, Sir (said Mr. M'Carthy), can more clearly demonstrate than this case does the absolute necessity of some legislative enactment (such as the ancient law of civil death,' which was both simple in its operation and effectual for its purpose) to protect Catholic families from the rapacity of those establishments, as well as to save the inmates themselves from perpetual annoyance after having retired, as they fancied, from the cares and anxieties of the world, to the peaceful monotony of a conventual life; and in taking the vow of poverty, having, as they thought, divested themselves for ever of the power of acquiring or enjoying property, from the dreadful alternative of being made the unwilling instruments of depriving their families of that property which they well knew it was never intended should be alienated from them, and handing it over to utter strangers, for whom individually they may have possessed no regard, or by breaking their vow of obedience, and being deprived of the holy communion (see Bishop Murphy's evidence), devote themselves to endless remorse in this life, and perhaps eternal perdition beyond the grave? "From that distressing position the wisdom of our ancestors rescued individuals who had taken religious vows; and I humbly submit that it now becomes the duty of the Legislature, since it has permitted convents to grow up again in this country, either to restore the ancient law of civil death,' which prevented the vow of obedience from being made an instrument of torture to plunder families of their property, or to enact some other law which will prove equally stringent and efficacious. "Before I conclude I will mention a fact which I think highly honourable to the memory of the late Mr. O'Connell, Shortly after the decree pronounced by the Lord Chancellor in the convent suit, I was present when Mr. O'Connell congratulated my brother on the success of his family, and he highly extolled the justice and equity of the Lord Chancellor's decree." He (Lord Bernard) should give his cordial support to the Bill, telling its opponents that, although they might succeed in thwarting it this year, the feeling of the country would ultimately compel Parliament to pass it into a law. MR. SERJEANT SHEE said, he should not have risen to address the House but for the encouragement which he had received from the pious tone of the noble Lord who had last spoken. He did not rise to complain of insult. The Roman Catholics were quite able to defend themselves; and as they abstained from insulting those by whom these insults were offered, he thought they should have, in the estimation of all right-thinking men, a great advantage over them. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Viscount Bernard Malins) had, however, laid down a proposition which he had heard with considerable surprise, which he was sure no Protestant divine and no person in authority would sanction-a, proposition which would not for a moment bear the test of inquiry in any Christian assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman had laid it down, that no act which was done under the bias of a religious vow could be considered a voluntary act, and he had called upon the House to sanction this monstrous doctrine, for which he had stated no authority but the authority of Lord Chancellor Brady, a very eminent man, and a very good man, and a very good lawyer, but evidently a very bad divine. It was a monstrous proposition that because a person had engaged by a solemn vow to do a particular thing, and afterwards did that thing, the thing was not done voluntarily; yet that was the proposition upon which this Bill, and, indeed, the whole of this debate, turned. No Christian divine would sanction such a proposition as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and it was quite clear, according to the doctrines of the Church of England, that a solemn promise made to God was binding. But let them suppose there was no vow, and that the father of some young English lady had, with the consent of his daughter, entered into an engagement with a convent to maintain that daughter or daughters, as the case might be, during the whole of her life, no matter what the state of her health, in consideration of a sum of 2,000l. paid down, and with the understanding that she was to make over to the institution any property which might come to her through the father-let them suppose such a case, and would the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) say that if the engagement was drawn in proper form, it would not be upheld in a court of law? such was precisely the case of the Misses M'Carthy. They entered into an engage ment with the convent, and their father gave his sanction to the engagement. For fifteen years, from 1828 to 1843, these ladies continued members of that convent, not having shown any disposition to depart from the obligations of their vow, which their father had countenanced and assented to, well knowing that whether they were to receive a shilling from him or not, it was entirely within their own option whether they continued within the walls of the convent. But were his views on the subject of vows solely those of a Catholic? Now Why what did Paley, a great Protestant | cepted to it, and said he had very great authority, say as to the obligations of such doubt with respect to compulsion exercised a contract? He taught distinctly- over a party under the influence of a vow "That vows were solemn promises made to the voluntarily taken. He (Serjeant Shee) obSupreme Being, and that to violate them was sin-jected not only to the principle, but the ful; that though there was no command in the New Testament to make them, that much less was there a command to break them." policy of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen was perfectly honest in his way, and thought the sooner the Catholic religion was extirpated from Ireland the better, and that the best way to prevent the children from being taught was to starve the nuns. But the Bill in its very nature would be destructive of the The Legislature, however, were asked to suppose that what was done under a solemn promise was an involuntary act. If a vow was unlawful, it was not binding; but unless hon. Members were prepared to show that the vows alluded to were un-objects which he desired to promote, for it lawful, the attempt to pass this Bill was an immoral act, a sanction to falsehood, an incitement to a breach of promises which in the eye of the Catholic was highly unpleasing to God. They practised a text which others had forgotten :-" He who giveth his daughter in marriage doeth well, but he who giveth her not doeth better." He was loth to engage in religious discussions, but on such a subject it was almost impossible to keep clear of references to Scripture, and he would quote a passage from the Old Testament to show the mode of conduct under which Christians acted "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee, and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and per form." would enact all the evil which resulted from the old law of civil death without enacting any of its good. The law of civil death had some advantages in Catholic countries, but it was open to these objections-that avaricious, and vicious, and unjust parents and near relations could sacrifice their children. But that could not be done under the conventual system as sanctioned by the law of England, for the inmates of convents were as free after their admission as before. He knew nothing of the M'Carthy family, and he most reluct antly alluded to them; but referring to the statement read by the noble Lord (Viscount Bernard) near him, he would recall to the House that part of the prayer of that young man was, that his sisters might be declared civilly dead, that so he might share in their property; the meaning of the prayer to the Lord Chancellor was It was intolerable to contend in a Chris- either to declare the deeds void on account tian assembly that the keeping of a vow of undue influence, or to give sanction to was to be deemed involuntary and done the doctrine that they were civilly dead, in under coercion, and against the will and order that there might be some 16,0007. intention of the person making it. The more to be divided amongst the other Lord Chancellor of Ireland had talked children. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL: 20,0001.] of the compulsion of a vow, and stated Here was a father who died worth that what was done under the compul- 100,000l., besides large real estates-in sion of a VOW was an involuntary act, the full possession of his senses, with a but he had been corrected by men who full knowledge of all the consequences of were fully his equals, if not his supe- his dying intestate as regarded his daughriors. The noble Lord the Member for ters, still leaving no will behind him, and Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), a man thus opening to those daughters the posas competent to judge on such a point as session of an additional 20,0001. But any, said, on the first night of the debate, then came forward a young man out of the to the hon. and learned Member for Ennis-reach of the courts of law, and who was killen (Mr. Whiteside), that he could not spending the money in Paris, and said, reach this case. He said, It might be "Although I have every confidence that called undue influence-it might be called my sisters will continue the same holy and the coercion of a vow, but, after all, the self-denying life that they have been leadsubmission to the vow and the obedience to ing for the last fifteen years, I still would it is the voluntary act of the person who have you pronounce them dead in the eye of executed the deed." And Lord Brougham, the law." He (Serjeant Shec) maintained, when the Irish Lord Chancellor's proposi- that if they passed this Bill, they would be tion came before the House of Lords, ex-giving a direct bonus to every dishonest VOL. CXXXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 F 867 {COMMONS} Bill-Adjourned Debate. The Property Disposal parent-to every parent who might prefer a pretty daughter to a plain one-to every parent who might be seized with the ambition to push forward an eldest son at the expense of the other children-to do so. And were hon. Gentlemen not aware that in other Protestant countries-in Holland, for example-an attempt similar to that contemplated by this measure had been made only to be abandoned. He had letters there and then with him from Prelates in that country announcing that nuns in Holland and Belgium were as free to dispose of their property as any other subjects of the realm. He would, then, forewarn the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) to pause in a plan which could not be carried out without inflicting the greatest injustice upon the most destitute portion of the population of the country, who, unsupplied with the means of religious education by the State, were solely dependent for that object upon the care and attention of these ladies. MR. FREWEN said, he should not have risen to address the House had it not been for a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), in referring to a meeting which was held in London last Tuesday, and which, he believed, had been represented to the House as being of an exceedingly quiet, orderly, and loyal description. Now, he held in his hand a copy of the Catholic Standard, published last Saturday, giving a report of the proceedings, and purporting to give a perfectly correct report. From it he gathered that the statement which had appeared in some of the public journals last week did not, it must be allowed, correspond with the statement contained there. Hence this accurate report made a Mr. Orpwood, who, he understood, was the London agent of the Nation newspapera journal not considered to be of a very loyal character-it made him speak thus -after making a comparison between Prince Albert and Louis Napoleon-"Loyalty was a delicate thing, and it behoved those set over them to beware how they contributed to cause an estrangement between the rulers and the people. 868 all very well for Protestants to call them disloyal, but he was only astonished that they were as loyal as they were. If Protestants had been treated in would have borne it very differently; for even a similar manner by a Catholic Government, they now Catholic soldiers were ready to sustain the honour of England in the East, while the Legislature at home was persecuting their daughters and relatives. Let the Government beware, then, lest, by giving in to this bigoted faction, they should compel Catholics to look for sympathy and to hope for aid from other sources than that where they had a right to expect and obtain it. They accident, but they were also Catholics. Ile would were subjects of the English Crown; this was an have them, then, do everything lawful that was in their power, and if they did not succeed by lawful means they might still hope. (Renewed cheering.)” Now he certainly must submit that this was rather strong language; and as the remarks did not appear to him to be of a very loyal character, he thought it his duty to take the opportunity of producing them before the House. SIR JOHN FITZGERALD said, that as a soldier, and as the representative of a great Catholic constituency, he earnestly called upon the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen to withdraw his Bill. MR. MAGUIRE, who rose amidst loud cries of "Divide!" said, he had no doubt that at that moment (it was twenty minutes to six) hon. Gentlemen near him were exceedingly anxious to close the debate, but he could assure them that he was most unwilling that such an event should take place without his having taken occasion to state his sentiments on the Bill before them. clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the debate And it being a quarter before Six of the till To-morrow, without putting the Question. MR. J. O'CONNELL said, he only wished to be allowed to remark that, as the noble Lord the Member for Bandon (Viscount Bernard) had not done him the honour of giving notice that it was his intention to bring in the name of the late Mr. O'Connell, he could not specifically deny the statement which was said to have been made by him. would now say on behalf of one who could All, therefore, that he But a ever he did express such an opinion as no longer answer for himself, was, that if that imputed to him by the noble Lord, it would be in contradiction of the whole of his life. Mr. Weale also made a considerable long speech, and he used these words, in reference to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) "They must petition; and if petitions did not succeed, they must threaten; and if threats did not avail, they must be prepared to act. Mr. Serjeant Shee It was The House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock. OXFORD UNIVERSITY COMMISSION. MR. AYSHFORD WISE said, he beg. ged to ask the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) whether there was any foundation for the report that the Rev. George Rawlinson and the Rev. Samuel William Wayte had been recommended to Her Majesty's Government as fit and proper persons to officiate as the secretaries of the Oxford University Commission, should the Bill now before the House be passed into a law? rather too hard, I think, on Mr. Wayte and Mr. Rawlinson that their names should be brought on in this manner. I think that they, as well as others who have taken a great interest in this University question, and have forwarded suggestions to the Government, of which we have received a great number, ought not to be brought before the public in this way. OATHS BILL. Order for Second Reading read. LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I move, Sir, that this Bill be now read a second time. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." SIR FREDERIC THESIGER :* Mr. Speaker, Sir, when this measure was originally introduced by the noble Lord, now some considerable time ago, I ventured, in a few observations which occurred to me at the moment, to point out to the House the important principles which it involved, promising that I would afford an opportu the Bill. This has been long delayed, but certainly without any fault on my part: for it will be in your recollection that I have pressed the noble Lord so often to fix a day for the second reading of his Bill, as to excite the mirth of the House, happily so easily amused amidst its graver occupations. Upon one of these occasions, the noble Lord, with a confidence every LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in answering the question of the hon. Gentle man, I must take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the usual practice of putting questions, and to the ad-nity for a full discussion upon this stage of vantage of adhering to that practice in conducting the business of the House. The use of putting questions is to spare the House having Motions made for information, and to enable the House to procure very shortly, and without the trouble of discussion, information which can be at once given in answer to a question. To questions, therefore, the proper limit is, whether or no they can be made the sub-way remarkable, appealed to my knowject of a Motion. And a very great advantage is derived from the practice, because hon. Members who wish to make Motions for information may call for information, and Ministers may be equally able to give the information that is required. But I must say this practice is liable to abuse. I would only beg my hon. Friend to consider what would be the result if a Motion to this effect were made-that there shall be laid before the House all the recommendations that have been made to the Government for the various offices that may be vacant in Church and State; and also an account of the books that any of those persons have published, and the contents of those books. That would really be the kind of Motion that my hon. Friend would have to make in this case, if his question had taken the form of a Motion; and I must certainly decline to state whether these gentlemen, among others, have been recommended as the secretaries of the Commission. It is ledge of his anxious desire to bring on the discussion, and assumed, rather than expected, my assent to the suggestion. If I had been permitted to express my own opinion, it would not have been in the sense which the noble Lord so coolly took for granted, for, whether rightly or wrongly, my own impression was, that he exhibited symptoms of great reluctance, as if he felt some misgivings as to the propriety of the course which he has pursued. And, certainly, if he is at all influenced by public opinion, he might well hesitate about the step which he has taken; for as far as petitions indicate the state of public feeling, the result is striking and remarkable. This day we have had, as might have been expected, a petition in favour of the Bill, presented with the usual ceremony, from the City of London; but up to Wednesday, the petitions in favour of an alteration of the oaths, but not in favour of the noble Lord's Bill, were only three in number, with 166 signatures; whilst the peti-. tions against the Bill amounted to 481, | 1852, the noble Lord tried a new experiand contained no less than 60,171 signa- ment; he introduced one of his post finatures. The more I reflect, the more I am lity reform Bills, and proposed one comastonished, after the former professions mon form of oath, which of course omitted and acts of the noble Lord, at the charac- the words "upon the true faith of a Christer of this measure. It furnishes another tian." This was in the month of February to many proofs of his boldness in allowing -a very critical period of the noble Lord's nothing to stand in his way to the accom- Government, which terminated a few days plishment of any object which he has at after, and when conciliation of many secheart. I am anxious, at the earliest pe- tions of the House was the prudent policy. riod, to guard against an argument which In 1853, the noble Lord returned to his may be used in favour of permitting the original idea, and again brought in what is second reading of this Bill. One of the familiarly called a Jew Bill. These meagrounds on which the noble Lord founded sures of the noble Lord were carried by the expediency of his measure was, the decreasing majorities in the House of obsolete nature of part of the oath of ab- Commons, and defeated by increasing majuration, in consequence of there being no jorities in the House of Lords. But indescendants of the Pretender in existence; flamed, rather than discouraged, by sucand it may be urged that, as in this respect cessful opposition, he now proposes to no one would desire to retain the oath in break down some of the defences of its present form, the necessity of an alte- our Protestant Constitution, in order that ration must be conceded, and that we he may be able to march over their ruins ought to go into Committee. I trust that with the Jew by his side, and seat him no one will be so weak as to be caught by in the Legislature. It is impossible to such a specious argument. We must re- pass over without remark, the threat member that we are now discussing the held out by the noble Lord when he principle of the Bill; that we cannot con- introduced this measure, that if the law sent to its second reading without admit- were not changed, it might be worthy of ting that we are prepared to legislate upon consideration whether the House would the footing of having one common oath not be at liberty to seat the Jew in Parliafor all the Members of the House, and ment by means of a Resolution. The that this necessarily involves the weaken- words of the noble Lord are weighty ing, if not the abandonment, of the recog- words, and always significant, if not of a nition of the supremacy, and the surrender settled, at least of a dawning purpose, in of the securities which were carefully pro- his mind. But they must have been utvided at the passing of the Roman Catho- tered on the present occasion in utter forlic Relief Bill. Let no one flatter himself getfulness, or in hopes of the absence of that if he suffers this stage to pass, he can memory of all that has previously passed afterwards fashion the oath at his pleasure. on this subject. Why, in 1850, the preThis is the vantage ground on which the sent Vice Chancellor, Sir William Page battle of principle can alone be securely Wood, then Member for Oxford, made a fought; and if we allow ourselves to be Motion on behalf of Baron Rothschild, drawn into the field which the enemy may that the seat for London was full, although select, we shall have nothing left but to in taking the oath of abjuration the Baron surrender at discretion. I stated that this had omitted the words " on the true faith measure showed the determination evinced of a Christian." Sir John Romilly, the by the noble Lord in carrying any favourite noble Lord's Attorney General, expressed object. When, some years back, he was himself clearly of opinion that the words returned for the City of London with Baron were of the substance of the oath, and Rothschild, by one of those hasty pledges that no Resolution of the House could enwith which he is too apt to embarrass him- able them to dispense with an Act of Parself, he promised to use his utmost endea- liament. The noble Lord, in 1851, advours to remove the impediments to the verting to this argument, said, that it was Jews sitting in Parliament. No one will evidently the intention of Parliament that say that the noble Lord has not been as the words "on the true faith of a Chrisgood as his word. From that time to the tian" should not be omitted. In July, present, the question has been brought 1851, Mr. Alderman Salomons having forward almost every Session in various taken the oath of abjuration, omitting shapes, and debates of the greatest inte- these words, the noble Lord himself moved, rest and earnestness have taken place. In "That David Salomons, Esquire, is not Sir F. Thesiger |