The Sun. — London, England, 1865-06-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAR :uI DI ' HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at the usual hour. TRACTARIAN PREACHERS. The Marquis of WESTMEATH introduced a bill to amend the law relating to the performance of Divine wor ship in the Church of England. He said he would explain its provisions on the second reading. DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT. Lord REDESDALE said he thought they could get all the business done by the 13th Tter. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that Government had not made any arrangements that would necessitate dissolution before that date. ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL. The Earl of DEVON, in moving the second reading of this bill, said he was anxious to see every remnant of in tolerance towards their Roman Catholic fellow subjects abolished, and the object of the bill had his cordial approval. Having read the terms of the declaration required to be taken by Roman Catholics before they could take their seats in either House of ,Parliament, which he ridiculed, he said there was no reason to doubt the loyalty of the Roman Catholics of this country, and the imposition of this oath was an unnecessary insult to that body. He denied that the oath afforded any additional guarantee for the fidelity of the Roman Catholics to the constitution and the Crown, because, as it was compulsory under the circum stances, there was no security that it would prove binding on the consciences of the members of that Persuasion. They should rely on the growing intelli- gene of the Roman Catholics and the respect they entertained for the Established Church, and not on an oath of this description. He contended that the oath was also open to the objection, that it limited and fettered the discretion of members of both houses in the discussions that took place. He alluded to the attempt that had been made in 1829 to disqualify Roman Catholics from voting on matters affecting the interest of the Established Church, and he referred to statements made on that occa sion of certain distinguished speakers discussing the attempt. He denied that there was such a compact in fact; and even if there had been, the Parliament of 1829 had no power to fetter the discretion of the Parliament of 1865. They might be reminded, perhaps, of the recent encyclical letter of the Pope, andof the papal aggression in 1851; but he did not think that either of those events warranted the slightest apprehension for the Protestantism of the country or the Protestant Church. He believed we neither required nor were benefited by the exaction from Catholics of such declarations as were contained in this oath. The Earl of DERBY, in moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months, said that he felt great re luctance in opposing the bill, but he deemed it neither wise nor expedient to adopt a measure which would subvert one of the leading principles of the settlement of 1829: For his own part he lived in a county which contained a larger than usual proportion of Roman Catholics, with many of whom he was on terms of intimacy and friendship ; he was the owner of an estate in Ireland, on which he had many Roman Catholic tenants, and he defied any human being to say that either in his social relations or in his action as a landlord he had ever made the slightest distinction between Protestants and Catholics. For the 43 years of his political life he had taken an active part in relieving Roman Catho- lic members from disabilities which he thought unjust; and he had on that ground exposed himself to the animadversion of the ultra-Protestant members of his own party. This was not, however, a question to be decided by personal considerations ; it was a high political question, and was to be dealt with as such. Especially at the present time, he thought it unwise and inexpedient to bring forward such a measure. Until the bill was brought forward there was no question likely to excite angry feelings among the electors at the approaching elections. It might be good electioneer ing, but was it statesmanlike to throw'before the electors a measure more likely than any other to excite those feel ings which he deprecated ? Was it was for the sake of the Roman Catholics ? He thought nothing was more likely to prejudice their cause than to bring forward what he would call imaginary grievances at a time of excite ment. Then by whom was this bill brought forward ? When Lord Nugent brought forward the petition for the repeal of Roman Catholic disability in 1821, it was signed by 8,000 persons, including several peers, and all the best Catholic blood in England. Such men then petitioned Parliament because they had then a real grievance. But where were those men now ? What petitions were there in favour of this bill ? Where were now the great historic Roman Catholic families ? Not one of them was now here. And why? Because not one of them felt that they had any substantial grievance, or that they were deprived by this oath of anything to which they had a right—be cause they know that the terms of this oath were not im posed by a grudging Protestant parliament, but wore suggested by Roman Catholic prelates and lawyers, and were the terms on which they expressed their willingness to receive the Catholic Emancipation Act. The question of the desirableness of having only ono oath was not now be fore them, for this bill would still leave a special oath to be taken by Roman Catholics as distinguished from Protes tants. With regard to the clause in the oath directed against the papal supremaey, that was originally imposed by a Catholic Parliament before the time of Henry VIII., and was taken by that monarch and by both Catholics and Protestants in the time of Elizabeth without the slightest objection. It was not, as Lord Plunket well said, a test of religion, but a test of loyalty. In 1821 Lord Plunket intro duced a measure intended to enable Roman Catholics to take the oath of supremacy by defining its meaning, without however altering its terms. It was then the same as now. During the long contest which ended in the Roman Catholic emancipation, the Roman Catholics and their advocates ad mitted that security should be taken for the stability of the Throne and the Church. He did not believe for a moment that the Roman Catholics held the doctrines which they were called upon to renounce by this oath ; but at the same time most of those imputations were traceable to some acts of the Pope, or to some passages in the works of their casuists. Therefore he did not think it too much, nor did the Catholics think before 1829 that it was too much that they should be called upon expressly to renounce such doc trines. The measure of 1829 was passed by the Government of Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington as the least of two dangers. The unreformed Parliament of that day was far in advance of the liberality of that time in regard to the treatment of Roman Catholics. The Emancipation Act was distasteful both to the great body of the people and to the Crown, and it would therefore have been very injudicious if they had not surrounded it with such restrictions and safeguards as might conciliate popular feelings and remove popular apprehensions, while they were not offensive to the Roman Catholics, by whose representatives they were suggested. It was admitted even by the Rev. Dr. Doyle, that after the Revolution of 1688 Parliament was justi fied, by the disloyalty of the Roman Catholics, and by their attachment to the Stuarts, in passing restrictive laws against the Roman Catholics, although not in going to the full length of the penal code which they then enacted. By the middle of the eighteenth century matters had changed; the new dynasty had become established; the cause of the Stuarts was hopeless. In 1757 a declaration was put forth on behalf of the Roman Catholics abjur ing any wish to attack the Protestant Church, and pro mising that, if they were admitted to the elective fran chise, they would not use it to the detriment of that Church. They also renounced any wish to disturb the settlement of property, and declared that they did not hold the doctrines referred to in the oath which was now BO much complained of. In 1792 a petition was presented to the Parliament of Ireland by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in which similar professions of opinion, similar renunciations, and similar promises were made. In con sequence of this the Catholics were admitted by the Irish Parliament to the It ish parliamentary franchise. He came next to a petition presented to the Imperial Parliament in 1808. That contained declarations similar in effect to those he had already quoted ; and these were represented in other •petitions presented in 1812, by Mr. Grattan in 1813, and by Mr. Plunket in 1821. In that year Mr. Plunket distinctly declared on their behalf that they had no desire to disturb the Protestant Church, but that they would, on the contrary, resist any attempts at its overthrow, from whomsoever they might proceed. In 1825 Archbishop Murray said that he had no reason to think that any part of the Roman Ca tholics desired to obtain for their own Church the property of the Protestant Church, and he expressed the willingness of his co-religionists to give any reasonable satisfaction on this point ; and, in fact, a declaration that they were not hostile to the Protestant Church, and would do nothing to injure it, was in the following year signed and made bY 3o ßoman Catholic bishops and archbishops. Mr. O'Con nell and other eminent Roman Catholics had expressed othemselves to the same effect. It would be a gross injustice t Sir R. Peel to suppose that he introduced these oaths merely as a concession to popular clamour. Undoubtedly he believed that they would act as a restraint upon Roman Catholic members of Parliament who might be disposed to attack the Church. He (Lord Derby) drew abroad distinction between the different portions of the oath. He had no objec tion to release the Roman Catholics from declaring that they did not hold the doctrin e th at princes excommunicated by the Pope might be deposed or murdered by their subjects. He was also willing to give up the clause declaring that the person taking it took it without mental reservation or equivocation. He quite agreed that this part of the oath was a b s urd, and if it was offensive to the Catholics he was quite willing that it should be swept away. He might bo asked why, if such were his views, he did not allow the bill to go into committee and then move an amend ment ? But the very amendment which he had sketched out had been rejected in the House of Commons ; and he did not think that it was in general desirable to ask that house to accept an amendment which they had already rejected. He had indeed offered that if the Government would support the arrangement which he proposed he would not oppose the second reading. He would again repeat that offer; but if the Government insisted that the bill should pass as a whole, then he must oppose it as a whole — believing, as he did, that it contained provisions which it was desirable to retain. There was in Ireland a strong belief on the part of the ignorant peasantry, that the forfeited estates would one day or other be restored to their ancient possessors. No doubt that was a wild and absurd delu sion, but it was not desirable to encourage it, by abandon- ing the clause which bound every member of Parliament to defend the existing settlement of property. But his noble friend (Earl Devon) said that the oath was open to this objection, that it only bound the conscientious and sincere ; but what oath did more ? Then it was said that the oath was ambiguous ; but Mr. Justice Shee, the late Mr, Lucas, and other eminent Roman Catholics, had expressly stated that they considered it bound them not to do any thing to the prejudice of the Protestant Church. It only precluded them from giving any vote which in their inmost consciences they believed would be, and which they in tended to be, injurious to the Established Church. He therefore maintained that the oath was a real protection to the Church, while its repeal would be a serious blow to that Church, by leading to the impression that Parliament was no longer in favour of maintaining it. In the course of the discussion in the Lower House, an said that the object of the bill was to "unmuzzle the senators." But to " un- muzzle" them for what? Clearly that they might do thevery thing which it was desired to prevent them. Unmuzzle them because they were harmless ? No, but because they wanted to bite. (Laughter.) The very fact that they were asked to re peal this oath on such a ground showed ¶he necessity of retaining it. He believed that the removal of these restric tions, which did not impose any burden upon the Catholics, would open the door to a serious attack on the Protestant Established Church. Could they say that there was no _ _ disposition on the part of the Catholics to attack that Church, when they saw that associations were being formed to send members to Parliament for the purpose of voting against it ? Such was not a time when they could assent to a mea sure like the present. If it was to be brought forward, it should have been brought forward by the Government on their own responsibility. They should not have sheltered themselves behind a respectable but perfectly insignificant person like the gentleman who had introduced it, and have thrown the question loose before the country on the eve of a general election. -Ile would if he could have relieved the Roman Catholics from parts of the oath which were dis tasteful to them without abandoning those which he consi dered essential to the safety of the Church ;but the Govern ment would not allow that to be done, and that being the case, he must stand by the Church which he had supported ever since he could think, and which he was not likely to abandon for any fancied advantage when he was approach ing the confines of old age. (Cheers.) _ _ Earl RUSSELL—I think it quite unnecessary for the noble earl to have said, as he did, that it was with no preju- dice against the Roman Cathlic body or against the religion of the Pope that he opposed the second reading of this bill. This is a verygrave question, raised after the Roman Catho lic question has been settled for 36 years, and under circum stances in which your lordships ought to reflect seriously before you alter the oath. But how comes this question be fore your lordships ? A most respectable member of the Roman Catholic body brought forward the bill ; and I be lieve-that the great body of the Roman Catholics were ready to respond to the principle of the bill, though many of them do not feel any personal grievance in consequence of the oath. There are several objections to the words of the oath, and I will first allude to those parts which the noble earl is willing to get rid of. He is willing to abolish that part which denies that princes excommunicate may be lawfully deposed or murdered. Everybody will agree not to impose that part. And he is also willing to strike out that part which says that the oath is taken without mental equivo cation. But when the noble earl says that he stated to the Government that he was ready to part with those parts of the oath it appears to me that he takes away without any great benefit one of the chief objections to this proceeding. It has been said that the chief objection to the course taken is that the matter was settled by Parliament years ago, with the consent of all parties, and that the settlement ought not to be disturbed. But, surely, when you consent to alter the oath, and take away that part which is peculiarly offen sive in the terms, you would take away all other parts of it if they formed substantial grievances. Now, as to this bill being in conflict with the spirit of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. During the long contest, Grattan, Plunket, and others, with the view of obtaining the consent of Parliament and removing the jealousies of Protestants, offered various securities—the noble earl has referred to the securities offered in 1757 and 1793—but they did not obtain the assent of Parliament. At the end of the long Parliamentary contest, when it came to be a question be tween Earl Grey on the ono part and Mr. Canning on the other, Earl Grey said, "You ask for security; show me your danger, and I will show you my security." And Mr. Canning said, " I am reproached and taunted with not go ing on proposing securities, as in former years; but I may say that I will not be a security granter all my life, when the proposed securities have been repeatedly rejected." The principle acted upon was that there should Be mutual concessions. When Sir It. Peel came to propose his mea sure of Catholic emancipation in 1829, he made a declara tion to the same effect. That is what you do at this mo ment depriving him of an equal position with the Pro testant. The noble earl holds forth from this house that if you tako away this security from the oath you will let in a flood of danger to the Established Church. But the noble earl forgets—and that is the point of the whole complaint—that the power which you tell the Catholic he is not to exercise you allow the.rro testant to exercise. Protestants may belong to Liberation Societies—they may say we think the Church endowment altogether wrong—we think that it is an injury to religion to have any such endowment, and therefore you ought not to give to Protestants that very power of which you at tempt to deprive the Catholics. (Cheers.) And what is the consequence of that ? Some of the counties in Ireland thought themselves precluded from electing Roman Catho lics who would make it their business to take away the revenues of the Church, and they elected Protestants who use that very power—who declare in the House of Com mons that it is their object to subvert the Established Church and deprive it of all its revenues. That shows the absurdity of the whole proceeding. (Hear, hear.) Sir R. Peel goes on to say, "I believe there is more real security in confidence than there is in dis trust and suspicion unaccompanied by effectual safe guards." And yet by these words of the oath you, accord ing to the noble earl and many others, deprive the Roman Catholic of any power of exercising his judgment upon any question relating to the revenues of the Church. I now come to that part of the oath relating to the settle ment of property. Although in 1757 there were many who thought the ancient settlement of property might be re stored, I doubt if there is any Catholic now who thinks that the existing settlement is likely to be disturbed, or that the ancient possessor of the soil has any hope or chance of its restoration to him. The rights of the Roman Catholic, like those of the Protestant, rest on the general security of the land, and you require no oath from him on that subject. The oath goes on to disclaim any intention to subvert the Protestant government or religion. Will you say that the Protestant is not to be debarred from doing this, but that the Roman Catholic is ? If you say that you at once say that there should be no equality be tween Protestant and Catholic ; and I frankly own that in holding that language you offer an insult to the Roman Catholic, and that you likewise do what is contrary to the spirit of the present time. The spirit of the present time, I will venture to say, is that all members of Parliament should have that equality to which Sirßobert Peel referred. Every man who enters Parliament should have the power of voting according to his own conscientious judgment for those laws which he thinks for the welfare of the king dom. The noble earl says he thinks this is a question which regards the welfare of the kingdom. I quite agree with him. I say it is for the welfare of the kingdom that every man who enters Parliament should have full liberty to give his opinion, whether with regard to the Church Establishment or any other part of the law ; and if you attempt to bind any man not to exercise that liberty, you debar him from that equal and just free dom which every member of either house ought to enjoy. (Hoar.) I say, then, that the oath is contrary to the inten tion and view with which the Emancipation Act was passed, and is also contrary to - the spirit of our times. It is no ar gument with me to say that in 1797 or in 1757 there was a different spirit with regard to these things. My opinion is that as the world gets older men get more regardful for each other, and they have larger and more liberal views. What I find fault with the noble earl for is that while he submits to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 he will make no concession to the progress of religious liberty, and refuses that to the Roman Catholics to which they are fairly and justly entitled. I now come to the question of the ambiguity of the oath. The noble earl says there is no ambiguity in it. Now, I confess it appears to me with, regard to the oath of allegiance there is no ambiguity in it ; but as regards this oath there is considerable am biguity. It has been and is disputed among Roman Catholics in what sense this oath ought to be taken. There are many who think it precludes Roman Catholics from giving any vote which may tend to injure the revenues of the Church of England or Ireland. There are others who hold a totally different opinion. There was one very eminent person —a learned judge—who was quoted in the other house as having given the true interpretation of the oath. That was Mr Justice Shee. There was another excellent and learned man —Mr. Joseph Napier—who entertained quite a different opinion. There are many conscientious Roman Catholics who think the oath would be binding upon them in case they possessed any civil office, but that in their legislative capacity it is no more binding upon them than the Corona tion Oath was supposed to be binding on Geo. IV., and that they are at liberty to give a vote for the entire subversion of the Church of Ireland so far as its revenues are concerned. I remember hearing the noble earl himself, in the other house, read out the oath in the presence of the Roman Ca tholic members, and then leave it to them to reconcile that oath with the vote which they were about to give with re spect to the revenues of the Church of Ireland. Now I must say that that was a very painful thing. You have members of the House of Commons who are as conscientious men as any part of the assembly to which they belong, and yet you say that the Protestants aro at liberty to do what they please with regard to the revenues of the Established Church, but that the Roman Catholics are guilty of perjury i t f_.:! , s lifi s y give a vote th a t may t ouc h th ose revenues . N ow snwoseto some ne p :ph s r i te t s i ( t ) : : ogs subject equality.necessity ejceeee,stthety for T Romans o h a t d i o s i not ncga. t Catholics "oulpositionticshouunless lies tsiowhst itherceh necessary ? Supp ose the Roman Catholics were no more bound than the Protestants, what would be the conse quences ? There are a great many Roman Catholics who think that the Protestant Church is a security for good order and for the general observance of piety, and they would vote THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 27. 1b65. willingly and most cheerfully against any attempt to sub- vert the Establishment. There would be others who would give a vote against the revenues of the Protestant Church. But does anybody believe that that oath is a security to the Protestant Church? (Hear, hear.) So long as Par- iament believes that that Church is connected with the religion of Ireland, with the maintenance of the Crown, and with the general welfare of the kingdom, so long that Church will be supported. But if these securities should fail ; if men should cease to have an attachment to the Protestant Church in Ireland; if they should consider it for the good of England and Ireland that the Church of Ireland_ should no longer hold her revenues, do not think that this flimsy security of two or three sentences in an oath would be any real security. (Cheers.) Why not then rely upon that which is the real security ? I believe that it would be better to give to Protestant and to Catholic the same religious liberty, and to rely upon the conviction of Parliament as to what is useful to the country and what is essential to religion and necessary to the maintenance of property, and not upon words which were put in to entrap Roman Catholics, which distress many of them from the fear that they cannot give a vote in conformity with their political opinions, and which induce others of greater violence of opinion to give votes against the revenues of the Establishment. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord says he is quite willing to give up that part of the oath which re lates to equivocal and mental reservation and to the murder of• sovereigns. But Ido not believe that any advantage would accrue from taking away that portion of the oath. You would thereby simply disturb the settlement made in 1829, and you would not by so doing give any real satis faction to the Roman Catholics, neither would you com- plete that which is necessary for religious liberty. If the object of the Roman Catholic is to endeavour to injure the Protestant Establishment with the view to aid the Roman Catholic Church, I think you may rely safely enough upon the strong Protestant feeling of the country to defeat any such attempts. (Cheers.) Looking, therefore, upon this measure as a step in our progress towards religious liberty, and a necessary step after so many years, and as one that tends to give to my fellow-subjects that full liberty which they ought to enjoy, I shall vote most heartily for the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.) The Earl of HARR I / 4 0WBY believed that this oath was framed by Sir R. Peel with an express view to the safety of the Irish Church, and that it could not be replaced with out injury to that institution. For that reason he must vote against the measure, however repugnant it might be to his feelings, to anything which seemed like opposing the fullest extension of religious freedom and equality to the Roman Catholics. Earl GREY said that those who contended that the re tention of the oath was essential to the maintenance of the Established Church in England held a doctrine which he conceived to be injurious to the interests of that Church. The oath was never intended to prevent Roman Catholics from voting on Church questions ; and if they were en titled, as the noble earl opposite (Earl Derby) admitted they had been, to vote on the " Appropriation Clause," it could not be argued that the oath bound them upon all other Church matters. It appeared to him that every mem ber of the Legislature, in both houses of Parliament, was under the higher and prior obligation to give his vote ac cording to his conscience and his judgment, as he believed best for the country ; and that which was imposed by the authority of previous Parliaments ought not to be allowed to fetter him in the exercise of that judgment and discre tion. To argue otherwise was—to contend against the first principle of,the constitution. The danger to the Established Church in Ireland was the discontent of the Irish people ; but how could it be supposed that the danger was avoided by preventing the expression of discontent which the longer it smouldered the fiercer it grow by Roman Catholic members ? (Hear, hear.) He adhered to the opinion that the arrangement of Church property in Ireland was so essentially unjust and contrary to the principles of natural equity, that, if they were determined to maintain them unaltered, sooner or later a great trouble would take place on the subject. He admitted that it was not desirable to precipitate that trouble ; but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that in Ireland they had a Church, professing to be a national Church, which was of no use to the great majority of the people. It should not be supposed that he advocated the subversion of the Protestant Establish ment in Ireland ; but, at the same time, he believed that if they looked into the question in a spirit of wisdom and justice, and, above all, of Christian charity, it would not be impossible to discover a mode of settling it which should be just to all parties, and better for the Protestant religion than the maintenance of the existing state of things. He believed that it was this sense of injustice on the part of the people of Ireland which had prevented the spread of the Protestant religion in that country ; and until it was removed, so long would the opposition to the Establishment be continued. The noble earl (Derby) had contrasted the past conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland with their present disposition to attack the Church. Such a disposi tion might exist ; but if it did, it was the result of the errors which had been committed by the Governments of England in dealing with them. When the union of Ireland was carried, it was the desire of Mr. Pitt that that measure should be followed by the relief of the Roman Catholics from their disabilities, and by a measure also making some public provision for their clergy. That wise policy of Mr. Pitt was defeated by those who saw in it danger to the have committed this matter to their care. He could not agree with his noble friend (Lord Devon) that there was very little practical difference between the oath embodied in this bill and that of the Act of 1858. The Act of 1858 embodied a recognition of the Royal.supremacy, whereas this oath did not. Now he would strongly object to any oath which enabled Protestants, in common with Roman Catholics, to ignore the Royal supremacy. However, tho question before them was, whether they were prepared to say that the most valuable and essential part of the oath of 1829 should be abolished. He did not mean to strain the Act of 1829 beyond its natural range, and to say that every provision of it was unalterable ; still there were parts of it which were vital and of permanent obligation. He would have consented to removing that portion of the oath which, having been repealed as regarded the Protestants, might fairly be considered by Roman Catholics as invidious and insulting; but with regard to the other part of the oath — that which was the condition upon which Roman Catholics were admitted to Parliament—he could not consent to its abolition. Their lordships would observe that with re spect to that portion a Roman Catholic did not complain that it was offensive, but that it was a restraint upon his conscience, and therefore he desired it to be removed. The answer to that was, that such restraint was precisely what was intended in 1829, and what the Roman Catholics had agreed to accept. It was said that there were scrupulous Roman Catholics who abstained from interfering in any questions connected with the .Established Church, on the ground that they were restrained by the oath which they had taken ; but it was said, too, that the oath was am biguous, and that the. Roman Catholics hardly knew how they were to act on particular occasions. Some felt that the oath was binding, and others that it was not. Unscrupulous persons would not be bound by any oath; and as to ambiguity, every man must construe the oath according to his own conscience, and, if he enter tained the slightest doubt about acting, adopt the safe rule of practical morality, and refrain from acting. There was no doubt, from this feeling existing, that the oath did not act as a restraint, and he contended that the present was no time to remove any securities, because there was a dis ' position on the part of the Irish Roman Catholics to aim a deadly blow at the Establishment in that country, and that the English Catholics would necessarily be exposed to ex ternal influence to induce them to adopt the aggressive policy which the noble lord proved, by a sermon by the present Archbishop Manning, to be the avowed object of the Roman Catholic Church. For these reasons he would not consent to abandon what he firmly believed to be a security to the Established Church. Lord LYVEDEN looked upon what had been said against the bill as merely uttered for election purposes, and contended that the bill could not have been in better hands than those of the noble earl who had introduced it. Tho opinion of the country, so far as could be ascertained, was decidedly in favour of the bill. He denied that the settle ment of 1829 was the only question before the house. An other question was, whether a bill which had been sent up by large majorities of the House of Commons should, on the ground of the settlement, be rejected. The Catholics stated that the oath was vague, indefinite, ambiguous, and in many respects offensive to them. Tho ground had been cleared up to a great extent by the admissions made by several noble lords that night that a great portion of the bill was offensive, He utterly denied there was any com pact made in 1829 which should preclude the House of Commons from sending up such a bill as that before their lordships. It was admitted that in two respects the bill ought to be altered, but ho thought that it ought to be altered in many others. Promissory oaths were always objectionable, and the more so when they wore as vague as the present. Ho denied that the Church was in danger, and maintained, on the contrary, that it would be perfectly safe even though assailed by Roman Catholics and Dis senters. He thought it would be well if the noble earl (Earl Derby) had allowed the bill to go into committee, and contended that they were as much entitled to alter the oath as to do any other legislative act within the pro vince of Parliament. He hoped that they would show to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects that they had not forgotten the principles which dictated the Emancipation Act, and that they would endorse the statement of Sir R. Peel that the Roman Catholics, since 1829, had shown by their conduct that they were influenced by no other than conscientious motives in their votes in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The Marquis of WESTMEATH, who addressed the house amid loud cries of " Question," observed that the oath which Roman Catholic bishops took on their conse cration contained passages similar to those which the Ro man Catholics of these countries, in their squeamishness, now objected to, and that the bill came from the other house only by a majority of 19. Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE said that if be followed his inclinations he would not vote at all; but that, considering the time and circumstances under which the bill was introduced, he should oppose the second reading. The house divided. The numbers were— For the second reading—Contents Non-contents Majority—Non-contents —2l The bill was therefore rejected. The followingbills were read a second time :—Carriers' Act Amendment Bill ; Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amend ment Bill ; Rochdale Vicarage Bill ; Naval Discipline Act Amendment Bill; and the Sugar. Duties and Drawbacks Bill. read the third time and passed, after a short discussion, in which Colonel Sykes, Mr. J. White, Mr. Adderley, and Mr. Cardwell took part. _ On the order for going into committee upon the Turn pike Acts Continuance Bill, Lord HENLEY complained of the slow progress made towards the total abolition of turnpikes, recommended by the committee of last year. The house went into committee upon this bill, the clauses of which were agreed to. The Report of the Inland Revenue Bill was agreed to, with an amendment, and the bill was read a third time and passed. The Report of the County Court Equitable Jurisdiction Bill was likewise agreed to, with sundry amendments. the Indemnity Bill and the Compound Warehousing Bill were read the third time and passed. The Colonial Docks Loan Bill passed the Committee, with amendments. The Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) Bill was read the third time and passed. • Several Bills were read the second time. The Railway Debentures, &c., Registry Bill was with drawn. The Lords' amendments of certain bills were considered. The House adjourned at.a quarter-past eight o'clock. Naval and Military Intelligence. Her Majesty's newly-constructed steam ram cor vette Pallas, attended by the dockyard tug Monkey, Mr. Smithers, master, returned to Woolwich yester day morning in command of Capt. Luke, Royal Naval Steam Reserve at that station, after her pre liminary trip to the Maplin Sands, and was again docked for the readjustment of her screw. The iron paddle vessel Antelope, recently on ser vice on the West Coast of Africa, which has been detained at Sheerness for official purposes, was yes terday inspected at Woolwich by Commodore Dun lop, C. 8., Superintendent of the dockyard, After unshipping her guns and war stores she will be stripped and paid out of commission. In conse quence of the untimely death of her commander, Lieut. Constantine 0. D. Allingham, the Antelope came home in command of Second-Master Alfred Thomas. She was commissioned at Woolwich on the sth of August, 1861, and has been successful in capturing three slavers, by which the ship's company will be entitled to a good amount of prize money. The Mariner, 12, and the Childers, 12, attached to the sailing reserve in Chatham harbour, have been purchased from the Lords of the Admiralty by Capt. H. F. M'Killop, the Mariner being in tended for a powder magazine. Although these, and the other ships composing the sailing reserve, are quite out of date as ships of war, they are in sound condition ; and, as the moorings they occupy in the harbour are required for other vessels, the Admiralty would act wisely in selling them out of the service with as little delay as possible. An order has been received for the sale of the gun-vessel Plover, 5, 800 horse-power, recently paid off at Chatham on her return from the coast of Africa. The armour-plates for the reconnoitring tower now being constructed at Chatham, for the iron frigate Bellerophon, will be manufactured by Messrs. Cammell and Co., of the Cyclops Iron and Steel Works, Sheffield, whose tender at £35 per ton has been accepted by the Admiralty. The fore and aft plates of the tower will be eight inches in thickness, and the port and starboard plates six inches thick. The difficulty in which the Turret-ship Committee found themselves placed, as noticed in the " Naval Intelligence" of The Sun of Saturday, by the refusal of Capt. Coles to entertain any consideration of a summary of objections raised by the Committee on evidence given, but which evidence Capt. Coles was not allowed to read, has been put an end to by the Admiralty directing the Committee to close their report and forward it to Whitehall immediately. Their lordships have further intimated that, after having perused the evidence and the report of the Committee, they will communicate directly with Capt. Coles. Port-Admiral Sir Chas. Fremantle, K.C.8., went on Sunday into Plymouth Sound, and inspected the iron-cased screw steamship Caledonia, 31, flag of Rear-Admiral Hastings R. Yelverton, second in command in the Mediterranean. The transport Tyburnia, 961 tons, Capt. Freak. Coote, belonging to Messrs. Somes, Brothers, Black wall, arrived in Plymouth Sound on Saturday even ing. She left Madras on the 9th of March with the headquarters of the 66th Regiment, under command of Lieut.-Col. Tom Benson, consisting of 22 ser geants, 7 drummers, 242 rank and file, 15 women and 21 children, and 3 privates of the 60th Rifles. The officers of the 66th are Capts. J. Galbraith and C. W. Oliver, Lieuts. H. K. F. Merewether and W. L. Battie, Ensigns 11. W. Baker and E. T. John ston, Lieuts. and Adjt. T. Mahony and Surgeon L. W. S. Murray, M.D., with Mrs. Mahony and family, and Mrs. Coote. The Tyburnia rounded the Cape of Good Hope on the 25th of April, left St. Helena on the 7th May, crossed the Equator on the 16th May, and passed the Western Islands on the 4th June, since which strong north-easterly winds have been experienced, and have detained her three weeks. On the Bth of June she spoke the Hanoverian schooner Almuth Ukeria, 188 days from Rio Grande for Falmouth; on the 17th, the ship Maxwell, from Callao for Cork ; and June 22d, the ship Anto netti, from Valparaiso for Cowes. The troops will probably be quartered in Plymouth citadel. The invalided troops brought to England from Calcutta in the sailing Indiaman Roslin Castle were transferred from that ship at Spithead yester day by a Government steamer to the Royal Vic toria Military Hospital at Netley, after which the Roslin Castle sailed for London. The officers and troops comprised :—Capt. W. St. John, and Mrs. St. John, 94th Foot ; Lieut. Spottiswoode, 21st Hussars ; Lieut. Heathcote, 98th Foot ; Lieut. Moore, 42d Foote; Assist.-Surg. Maunsell, 48th Foot ; 194 invalids (various regiments), 13 women, and 25 children. Six deaths occurred on the voy age. Capt. and Mrs. St. John proceeded on from Spithead to the Thames in the ship, on account of the illness of Mrs. St. John. The banquet announced to be given by the officers of the Royal Artillery to Lieut.-Gen. Sir Hugh Rose, G.C.8., K. 5.1., recently in command of the forces in India, came off yesterday evening at Wool wich. Sir Hugh arrived in the garrison from Lon don in the morning, attended by his aide-de-camp, Capt. Wilkins, and passed the early portion of the day, accompanied by Lieut. Reilly, C. 8., Royal Horse Artillery, in inspecting the Arsenal. Covers were laid for 130 persons. Among those present were Lieut.-Gen. Sir Robert Napier, Lieut.-Gen. Sir Richard Dacres, Major-Gen. T. Gordon Hig gins, Major-Gen. Sandham, and other officers who have been rewarded for meritorious and distin guished services in the field. Major-Gen. E. C. Warde, C. 8., commanding the garrison, presided. The following order has been issued at Wool wich :—" Commandant's Office, Woolwich, June 26.—A1l practice will be suspended at the practice range, Plumstead-marshes, from the 28th inst. to the 15th of July inclusive, to enable the contractors to cut and carry the grass crop, agreeably to the conditions of their tenders." The appointment of director of the Royal Engineer establishment, Chatham, has become vacant by the resignation of Col. H. D. Harness, C.. 8., who will be succeeded by Col. J. L. A. Simmons, C. 8., at pre sent attached to the staff at Aldershott. The duties attached to the appointment of director are now being performed by Lieut.-Col. T. B. Collison. The following appointments were made yesterday at the Admiralty :—Commander W. Chimmo, to the Gannet, commissioned; C. W. Ross, master, to the Sphinx ; Lieut. Alex. R. Kerr and Lieut. Francis Hayter, to the Victoria and Albert; Lieut. Lynedoch N. Moncrieff, as additional to the Princess Royal ; Lieut. J. A. Dashwood, as additional to the Curacoa ; P. H. Rickman, midshipman, to the Achilles ; Henry Rickard, assist.-surg., to the Wellesley, for Chatham yard ; and J. Ashton, "assist. paymaster, to the Sphinx. LADVERTISEXENT.I - Holloway's Ointment. Painless Cures.—Sores, wounds, ulcerations, and other diseases affecting the skin, are amenable by this cooling and healing unguent. It has called forth the loudest praise from per sons who had suffered for years from bad legs, abscesses, and chronic ulcers, after every hope of cure had passed away. None but those who have experienced the cooling effects of this ointment can form an idea of the comfort it bestows by restraining inflammation and allaying pain. Whenever this ointment has been once used it has estab lished its own worth, and has again been eagerly sought for as the easiest and safest remedy for all ulcerous com plaints. In neuralgia, rheumatism, and gout, the same ap plication, properly used, gives wonderful relief. Established Church ; and what was the consequence Was there a single man in the country of ordinary intelli gence or enlightenment who was not now convinced that if Mr. Pitt's views had been adopted at the end of the last century, the Protestant Establishment in Ireland would stand in a position of far less insecurity than it did at this moment ? (Hear, hear.) Were they then, after such ex perience, to repeat the same mistake ? Would they, for the ' sake of maintaining an imaginary security for the Church a little longer—he believed that foul or five years was the longest date which any man accustomed to read the signs of the times would give to the maintenance of the Catholic oath—would they, for the sake of maintaining that imagi nary security a little longer, add a new cause of irritation and a new cause of hatred against the Establishment in the minds of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects ? That was the question which they had to decide; for, while he did not disguise his feeling that the Irish Church Establishment must undergo reduction and readjustment to the state of the country, he at the same time should say that those who wished to prevent its entire subversion would vote un wisely if they concurred in the rejection of the bill before them. (Hear, hear.) Lord ST. LEONARDS observed that the argument of the noble earl was to the effect that this bill was intro duced to modify certain portions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829. But what would the noble earl argue if the bill before their lordships were ono for withdrawing the privileges which that Act had conferred upon the Roman Catholics of the empire ? It was urged that the present form of oath was only intended to be temporary by those who had framed the Act of 1829. He was one of those who had something to do with the framing of that measure, and he ventured to say that no Minister would have dared to pass the Act without including those safe guards in it. At the time of the passing of the Act the Roman Catholics would have accepted it subject to the condition that Roman Catholic members should not be allowed to vote upon ecclesiastical questions. But Sir Robert Peel objected to such a proposal, as it might give rise to endless disputation as to what was an ecclesiastical question. The Roman Catholic laity and clergy accepted the Act in its present form, and they should not now seek to escape from the compact they had freely agreed to at the time. A few years ago, when the whole of England, in defiance of numerous Acts of Parliament, had been par celled out into Roman Catholic dioceses by the Pope, the blood of Englishmen was roused to the utmost pitch of in dignation. One of the immediate results of that.excite meat was that an Act, very stringent in words, was passed, restraining any Roman Catholic archbishop, bishop, or dean from styling himself after the name of his diocese or deanery ; but the Act, though free from all ambiguity in words, was allowed to become a dead letter, and they saw the ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church openly violating it with impunity. Considering that the Roman Catholic oath as now taken was the result of a compact in which the Roman Catholics agreed, he was not prepared to give up the security which it offered. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in announcing his warm support of the bill, pointed out that every measure intended for the relief of the Roman Catholics of Ireland was opposed by noble lords opposite, who professed them selves the warmest friends of the country. It was so with respect to the Emancipation Act ; it was so on the educa tion question ; and it was so in regard to the proposal to reduce the number of bishops of the Irish Church Estab lishment—a measure, by the way, which had turned out most beneficially for the interests of that Establishment. Now, had the noble lord who had just sat down shown that the welfare of the Irish Church depended upon the main tenance of these words of the oath which the bill proposed to expunge ? He rejoiced to say that he had totally failed to do so. For although there was no denying that an in stitution like the Irish Church was full of anomalies, yet, having had abundant opportunity of witnessing the bene ficial working of an Established Church as compared with the working of a church supported upon the voluntary principle, he must say he regarded the principle of estab lishing religion in connection with the State with the utmost favour. The great misfortune for Ireland and for the Established Church was that the proposal of Mr. Pitt had not been carried into effect in the year 1826, when there was an opportunity of doing so, and that the main tenance of the Roman Catholic religion was not adopted by the State. He regarded the attempt to fetter Roman Catholic members of Parliament as both impolitic and ab surd, and he was well aware that the oath in its present shape was most offensive to many Roman Catholics. In his opinion there ought to be only one simple form of oath applicable to every citizen in this free community, and that ought to be framed without any reference to a man's reli gious belief. Lord CHELMSFORD said it was to be lamented that a question of the kind should have been agitated on the eve of a general election ; and, at any rate, if it was to be brought forward, it ought to have been brought forward upon the avowed responsibility of the Government. It might be said the Government had no control over the action of independent members of Parliament ; but, in this instance, it ought to be remembered the proposal ema nated from one who was a warm supporter of the Govern ment, and who, no doubt, would have been very glad to THIRD READINGS. The following bills were severally read a third time and passed :—Partnership Amendment; Fortifications (Provi sion for Expenses); Kingston Harbour; General Post-office (Additional Site); Locomotives on Roads; Small Benefices (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment ; and the Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances) Bills. The Commons' amendments to Parsonages Bill were con• sidered and agreed to. _ _ The Local - Government Supplemental (No. 4) Bill ; the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill; Navy and Marine (Wills) Bill; Pier and Harbour Orders Confir mation (No. 3) Bill ; Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Bill; Navy and Marine (Property of Deceased) Bill; and National Gallery (Dublin) Bill passed through committee. THE CONSOLIDATION FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. This bill was read a first time. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAST EVENING. The SPEA.KER took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Sir A. BULLER took the oaths and his seat for Liskeard. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' Amendments to the Great Northern Rail way (Sleaford to Bourn) Bill ; County Antrim and Bel fast Borough Bill ; Great Eastern Railway (Capital, &c.) Bill ; Lugg Valley Railway Bill ; and Solway Junction Railway Bill were considered and agreed to. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Kidwelly and Llanelly Canal and Tramroad ; West Corn wall Railway ; and Westminster Improvements. . The following bills were considered and ordered to be read a third time :—Bodm in and Wadebridge Railway; Burnley Market ; Carmarthenshire Railway ; Fergus River Navigation, &c. ; Llanelly Railway and Dock (Extension to Mumbles) ; Navan and limgscourt Railway; and West Cork Railway. The following bills were read a second time :—Earl of Winchilsea's Estate ; Limerick and North Kerry Junction Railway ; and Dublin, Clontarf, and Dollymount Tram way. GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. Sir M. FARQUHAR asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer what progress was being made in insuring lives and in purchasing Government annuities under the Act 27 and 28 Vic. cap. 43 ; and also what number of con 7 tracts had been entered into by the Postmaster-General in pursuance of that act ; at how many post-offices such business had been transacted; and whether such business was carried on at any and how many of the old savings banks _ _ -- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the act had only so recently come into operation that he could not give his hon. friend the information he required in detail. A long period of time had elapsed between the passing of the act and_ its coming into operation, so that it had not b een in operation, as was expected in some quar ters, immediately on its receiving the assent of p a rliament. They had appointed and opened about 400 offices for the transaction of business, but it had been found impossible, up to the present, to extend them over the whole of the country, but no time would be lost in increasing those offices at the earliest moment. No arrangement had been able to be come to with the old savings banks for carrying on the life insurance business. Some hundreds of trans actions have been completed by the offices already in existence, and it would be gratifying, no doubt, to the hon. gentleman to know that Mr. Scudmore, of the Gene ral Post-office, was quite satisfied with the transactions up to the present time ; and it was also most important to know that the rules all work well. He hoped he should be able very shortly to give the hon. gentleman further infor mation on the matter. THE HIGHWORTH UNION. _ • Mr. TORRENS asked the Secretary to the Poor Law Board whether any steps had been taken by the Board to ascertain that Dr. Kennard, medical officer of the High worth Union, had discontinued to employ his assistant, which was animadverted on and forbidden in the Secre tary's letter to Dr. Kennard, dated April 19, 1865. Viscount ENFIELD said an inquiry had been made into the matter, and Mr. Kennard had been informed of the feeling of the board. The duties of medical officer, he be. lieved, were now exercised exclusively by Mr. Kennard. No complaints had been received since the guardians of the poor had been in communication with Dr. Kennard, and that being so, it was to be expected that the duties of the office were now being strictly attended to. APPROPRIATION BILL. After a short discussion this bill was road a third time and passed. CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. HADFIELD stated his opinion to be that the bill would fall very far short of the expectations of its supporters. J. A. The House then went into committee upon the bill, the clauses of which were agreed to, with amendments. The Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) Bill was SPIRIT OF TEE PITBLiC JOURNALS. TIMES.—We sincerely regret that Lord Derby and the Conservative peers should have thought fit to reject the very reasonable bill for altering the Roman Catholic oath which had passed the other house. To maintain the last remnant of religious disabilities, to encourage the jealousy and suspicion which live in the forms of political oaths, to dignify with the name of policy the enforcing of petty restrictions which irritate and annoy, while they are confessed by those who defend them to give no real security, are acts unworthy of a party which aspires to govern. If any one doubts the existence of real difference between the two great parties in the State he may reflect on the conduct of the Government and the Opposition with respect to the Roman Catholic Oath Bill. It is in such questions of prin ciple or political sentiment, even more than in matters of practical administration, that the real distinctions of party appear. All those pretensions of the Conservatives to real liberality which Mr. Disraeli and one or two of the more astute advocates of the party have put forward may now be estimated at their true value. The present session has shown the Liberals true to their tradition of removing, as rapidly as ignorance and prejudice will allow, all the odious distinctions of the past, while those who follow the lead of Lord Derby have proved that they will not relinquish any right which they still possess of exacting useless though offensive pledges from those who differ from them. Very little can be added to the arguments for or against this bill which has not been already urged during the progress of the measure through the Commons. A right judg ment on questions like this is arrived at rather by considering leading principles than an historical examination, which is often merely a compilation of irrelevant and insignificant details. We cannot find that Lord Derby threw any new light on the matter by his retrospect to the days of 1829, and his dissertation on the opinions of Protestants and Catholics at that epoch. What Parliament has to decide is whether a certain form of words, which is strongly objected to by Roman Catholics in this year 1865, shall be any longer exacted from them. The only right method of coming to a conclusion is to consider whether the importance of the object to be attained and the efficacy of the oath to insure it counterbalance the grievance inflicted on the Roman Catholics by the form of the oath. Everything else is beyond the mark. Thus, when Lord Derby tells the House of Lords that in 1757 the Irish Catholics desiring the elective franchise declared through their Bishops that they had no design upon the Estab lished Church ; that in 1792 they declared them selves to be perfectly satisfied with it ; that Mr. Grattan wished to strengthen the Establishment ; that Mr. Plunket would never have attempted any thing against it; that the Roman Catholic Bishops of 1829 entirely assented to the present form of oath, and did not find anything offensive or unduly restrictive in it,—he shows that he is well informed as to the phases of this controversy, and has at command materials very interesting to the historian. But they really in no way guide us to a practical decision upon the matter. The circumstances and ideas of the present generation are very different from those of the past. How can it possibly bar the rights of the Catholics of the present day that more than a century ago their oppressed and broken-spirited ancestors made such or such a declaration ? Grattan and Plunket were eminent men, but we must guide our conduct by the ex perience of our own age, and not by the opinions which they, with less information than we possess and under the necessity of disarming prejudices which we have survived, expressed 40 or 50 years ago. Sir R. Peel and the Irish Bishops of 1829 spoke each for themselves and their followers ; as men thought and believed they expressed the feelings of their contemporaries, and the settlement they made contented their generation. But that is no reason that we should fear to approach the subject with perfectly unbiassed judgments. With the debates of 1829 or the long controversy which pre ceded them we have nothing to do. All we have to consider is the text of the act, and whether it is in accordance with the interests of society in the pre sent day. If circumstances and men have changed, the law should change with them. No one, we pre sume, will deny that, whatever Catholics may have felt 36 years ago, the present generation does really complain of the oath. With respect to some parts of the form there seems to be no difference of opi nion, for Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli have stated that they would be ready to relieve Catholics from repudiating the doctrine of murdering excommuni cated Kings and disclaiming the practice of mental reservation. But we entirely agree with the majority of the House of Commons, who thought that some thing more must be conceded than this. There is in the substance as well as in the form of the oath what may be justly objected to. It is enough to say that a Catholic member of Parliament is, according to the general interpretation, bound to refrain from speaking or voting according to his deliberately formed opinion on a certain class of subjects. Thus the fundamental principle of representation is vio lated. Not only the member himself, but every one of his constituents suffers a diminution of their rights. The house is presumed to consist of 658 members, but by the operation of this oath, if strictly interpreted, it is made to consist on certain occasions of so many members less, and a number of constituencies, comprising Protestants as well as Catholics, are virtually disfranchised. But to meet the Conservatives on their own ground, we would ask, do they really believe they give any real protection to the Irish Church by making the Catholics swear in the present form? It is a fact that of the Roman Catholics in Parliament a large number, perhaps a majority, do not interpret the oath so as to debar them from voting on mat ters relating to the Irish Church. They may say that the " present Church Establishment as set tled by law within this realm" means the whole Anglican Establishment, and that it would not to be a subversion of it nor a disturbing of the Protestant religion if the Irish temporalities were reduced to a narrower limit or taken away altogether. So that all that is gained, so far as the House of Com mons is concerned, is to neutralize the votes of less than a score of Catholic members. Is not more lost by keeping up irritation and discontent among Catho lics than is gained by removing the adverse votes of a few scrupulous men among their number ? Let it be remembered that no one but the member is bound, the whole Catholic population may agitate ; and even the Catholic members may, when out of the house, do as they please, and harangue from the platform in their non-Parliamentary capacity. This is surely a greater danger than the other, for if the Irish Church is to be overthrown it will not be by the votes of a few Catholic members given in Parliament, but by the combined efforts of the Irish Catholic population and the English Liberals. The Caholic vote in the Commons will have little weight in the matter. It is of no use, then, to tie down the Catholics when the real inveterate enemies of the Irish Establishment, the English Radicals, are free to vote as they please. From them will come the blow whenever it is destined to fall. These consi derations seem so plain that it is difficult to conceive how the leaaders of the Conservative party should have taken so invidious a course for so useless an object. That, however, is their own affair. The result of the discussion must be to convince those Catholics who have been coquetting with Toryism for some time past how little of the good will of the allies they have gained, and how small their chances are of governing England in conjunction with Lord Derby after they shall have succeeded in driving from power the party which befriended them in days when they were prostrate and suppliant, and which under Lord Russell and Lord Grey en deavoured last night to relieve them from a form of oath which they justly feel to be offensive. PosT.--The House of Lords has by a substantial majority thrown out the Roman Catholic Oath Amendment Bill. That such would be the case was anticipated, but the result will not on that ac count be the less regretted. It is so rarely that the Upper House of Parliament refuses its sanction to measures which have been carried successfully through the . House of Commons, that it cannot fairly be accused of abusing its privilege of negativ ing the decision of the other branch of the Legisla ture, but it is no doubt matter for reflection' that the occasions on which the right is exercised are invari ably those on which some religious principle is sup posed to be at stake. The House of Lords has now been brought to assent to the abolition of Church rates, and the marriage of a man with his deceased deceased wife's sister, the admission of Jews to Par liament, and now it refuses to endorse the decision of the House of Commons in favour of the amend ment of an offensive oath at present imposed on Roman Catholics by virtue of theiEmancipation Act of 1829. On questions of this kind the Episcopal bench manifest an astonishing unanimity, and last night its members, without an exception, recorded their votes against the proposed bill. e had on a recent occasion to notice the extreme liberality with which the majority of the members of the Lower House have begun to regard all questions of this kind, and expressed our opinion that they cor rectly represented the feelings of the nation. The rejection of the Roman Catholic Oath Amendment Bill betrays a prejudice, indeed we might say a nar rowmindedness, which, to say the least of it, runs counter to the current of public opinion at the pre sent day. The arguments which it is in the power of both the promoters and the opponents of this measure respectively to advance have already been so thoroughly canvassed, that the recapitulation in the House of Lords of the more material portions of the speeches delivered in the douse of Commons calls but for little comment. Lord Derby is, how ever, entitled to the credit of having furnished at least one additional reason for rejecting the bill. There is, he said, no grievance. The Roman Catholics do not themselves complain, and therefore it may be taken that they not only acquiese in but substantially approve of the form of oath which, under the existing law, they are obliged to accept on admission to Parliament. Postponing for the moment the consideration of the accuracy or other wise of the statement, it may be observed that the opponents of the bill in the Upper House were for tunate in obtaining the Earl of Derby as the re presentative. It was needle ' for him, when opening the speech with which he moved the rejection of the measure, to remind the House of Lords that he had on every preceding occasion, during a political career of upwards of forty years, given his voice in favour of religious liberty. When the Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1829 received the assent of Parliament, the Earl of Derby was one of the majority which) to quote his own language, " forced that measure on a reluctant Sovereign." But this being so, one may possibly feel surprised that the Earl of Derby should now refuse to assent to what is in truth it supplementary act of relief ; but it is not easy . to discover in it any proof that the bill itself is intrin sically objectionable. It is an error, Lord Derby contends, to suppose that Roman Catholics object to take the oath in the existing form, and in support of this view refers to the admissions of Roman Catholics previous to the Act of 1829, and to the opinions expressed by Plunket, the most eloquen t and firm advocate of Catholic emancipation. B ut however valuable such admissions might be if Roman Catholics were now, as in former times excluded from a share in the Government, they cease to be applicable when the issue is raised whether the con ditions under which Parliament was willing nearly forty years ago to relieve Roman Catholics of their then existing disabilities should still continue to be imposed. Lord Derby admitted that the Act of 1829 does not embody a contract, and if this be so it is certainly difficult to understand why the Roman Catholics of the present day should not be entitled to. disregard both the admissions and the arguments a their fathers, and ask that the grievance of which they complain should be judged on its own merits. The cardinal fault lying at the bottom of all th e arguments advanced by Lord Derby and his fol lowers consisted in the narrowness of the point of view on which alone these arguments could be con sidered tenable. It is .needless to repeat for the hundredth time that if a person taking an oath can be capable of putting any different construction on its terms than that of which they are obviously sus ceptible, it is utterly useless to require him to swear that he will not exercise that right of secret inter pretation. And the same remark applies with equal force to all those different clauses whose objection able character it is as needless to demonstrate as it would be puerile to deny. Those numerously-sign ed petitions for relief may, as Lord Derby stated, hase been presented to Parliament when the Catholic Emancipation Act was under consideration, but in the presence of the unanimity with which the Roma n . Catholic members of the House of Commons eA sented to the measure, it is scarcely correct to sal, that the members of that creed do not consider them selves seriously aggrieved on being called upon to take the oath in its present form. Earls Grey and RIO" sell took a much higher ground, when, in pressing •the bill on the acceptance of the House they dwelt on the expediency of assenting to what appeared to be the general desire of the country. The Uppe r House of Parliament is undoubtedly not bound ° sanction a measure simply because it has met with the approval of the Lower House, but due regar being had to the exceptional position which th e House of Lords occupies, it must be conceded that, unless for what they deem to be very weighty rea sons, its members should hesitate before putting their veto on the demands of the representatives of th e people. The House of Commons had declared by considerable majority that the oath imposed on Ro man Catholics by the Act of 1829 is useless an d highly objectionable, and ought to be repealed. Tile House of Lords was asked last night to adopt the same views, partly on the same grounds on which the other House had arrived at that conclusion, air partly because, in the absence of strong counter va '' ing reasons, some deference ought to be shown t° the wishes of the people. But special and general arguments proved alike unavailing, and the second reading of the bill was negatived by eighty-far votes against sixty-three votes. COUNTRY MARKETS COLCHES T ER—JuNE 24. Tho supply of wheat again very small, and a good de mand at an advance of fully is per qr. Beans and pea° very scarce, and rather dearer. Wheat, white ....428 46s Beans, Mazagan......338 368 408 red 3Js 428 Middle and small._ 358 Barley 208 25s grey —36B 385 GRANTHAM—JUNE 24. To-day wheat was in moderate supply. Business vvag healthy, and an advance of 1s per qr. was made. Old white wheat, 41s to 465; old red, 37s to 425; none white, 44s to 47s ; new red, 37s to 40s per 36 stone. Bar ley for malting, 29s to 33s per qr. ; grinding, 24s to 26s per 30 stone. Oats, old, .25s to 27s ; new, 22s to 24s per 24 stone. Beans, old, S9s to 41s; new, 36s to 38s per 38 stone. Peas, 34s to 36s per 36 stone. CHELMSFORD—JUNE 23. The supply of wheat was moderate, and is per qr. hig her than last week. Spring corn firm at late rates. Wheat, old white....4ls 483 Peas, Partridge 3 6 $ 3 " new lis 48s White • s 3115 old red 403 426 P.,iling 38 0 420 new. 38.3 42s bun.. ....... 3ls ......3560 Barley.. 253 32s dit o, new -- 0 070 Chevalier 263 b3s Beans, Tick, 01d......34S . 0 Grind.ng •Os 88 new.. ..—$ .... 0 Malt 618 67s Harrow ricks.3 s s Chevalier 64s 68a new.... 6 , Oats an ......33$ NORTHAMPTON.—JuNE 24. New white wheat, 38s to 42s ; new red, 388 to 40s ; old white, 39s to 44s ; old red, 38s to 41s per 36 stone. Barlelo for malting, 31s to 33s per qr. ; grinding, 26 s to 31s per 3 stone. Oats, old, 25s to 268; new, 18s to 24s per 24 stone' Beans, old, 36s to 40s ; new, 35s to 388 per 38 stone. r° B ' s ' 33s to 38s per 36 stone. ABERDEEN—JUNE 16. At this day's market there was a light business doing, and prices may be quoted nominally the same as last weel" White wheat 35s Od to 40s Od Red wheat 358 Od to 36s Od Potato oats 208 Od to 21 s Odl Common oats 19s Od to 208 Od Bere 218 Od to 22s 01. , olb bushel. 21s Od to 22s 6d Oatmeal 158 6d to 16 s 6 d 11 boll of 1 40Ib• Flour, fine 318 6d to 3 2 s Od lil sack of 2 8011). ‘"" V Barley 621 b 11 bushel. 40Th 11 bushel. KIRKCALDY—JUNE 24. Small supplies of all kinds of grain, and sales quick at 6d to is per qr dearer on all sorts. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First...— 87s 6d 1 23s 6d 22s 6d second 305:6d 26s rd 23s 6d Third 4ls Od —s Od 216 s d Foreign Mail Packet List. Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton June --, Ditto, via Marseilles June --.• Brazil and Cape Verde. by British pac.et July 4 . Ditto, by French packet . July 2 2 . Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena.... July 2 2 * China. Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton..Juiy 2 Ditto, via Marseilles June 2 6 . Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton . July 2. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton..., July O. Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via Southampton. June 26. Ditto, via ilarseilles .. June 26. Mauritius, via Southampton July ;l l* Ditto, via Marseil'e 3 July 6 . Newfoundland July : s. Portugal .... .. ._ . . ... ........... J u ly 4' Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon. United States and British North America, by Bri tish packet Ditto, by United States packet, via Southamp- ton Ditto, via Cork Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry.. June 30. West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe July 13 * Weat Indies and Pacific (exceptßahamas, Cuba, and Mexico June 2 8. Bahamas, via New York. June Bermuda, ditto July 6 Cuba and Mexico Juno -8' Births. DUKE.—On the 25th inst., at 43, Portland-place, the 1 01 ' 3 of Sir James Duke, Bart, M.P., of a son and heir. 1 , JONES.—On the 23d inst., atßyde, LW., the Lady Elizabot' Inglis Jones, of a son. MASON.—On the 26th inst., at 3 ; Prince's-terrace, irYde° park, the wife of James Mason, Esq., of a daughter. Marriages C OLLIER —BONNER.—On the 22d inst., at Saint George) Hanover-square, Herbert Cromwell Collier, Esq , jlVr , the Bth Hussars, youngest son of Admiral Henry ue",.,,;, to Blanche Frances, only child of Major-Genrl. B on of Great Cumberland-street, Hyde-park. DAUBENY—LEVESON.—On the 22d inst., at Saint Pel l oe '6 Knightsbridge, Colonel Daubcny, C.B•, to Mary 11011— second daughter of S. Leveson, Esq. Deaths. CURTEIS.—On the 23d inst., at Linton Vicarage, near Rte , Herefordshire, the Rev. Thomas C. Curteis, 8.D.7 aged 57. 1 o f DENBIGH.—On the 25th inst., at. Hampstead, the ---ex Denbigh, aged 69. isir" ROGER.—On the 23d inst., at 8, Wimpole-street, square, John Hext Roger, Esq., aged 61. de° BEMs/IN.— On the 25th inst.. the Hon. Mrs. Selwin, el daughter of the late Lord Lyndhurst, aged 44. SMITH.—On the 24th inst., the Rev. Edward O. wra rector of Hulcote, Beds, aged 77. the WYNNE.—On the 19th inst., at The Palace, Tea m ' A 64. Right Hon. John Wynne, of Haslewood, Sligo, age London : Printed and Published by WIL LIAM Dg 2. of No. 112, Strand, Painter , at TIM SUN Office, 11° .. of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Cou nty Middlesex.--Tuesday, June 27, 1865. SAVE Y( Ni y cil uIGAR our NIPI I%UTUA (Ina 14, RIM LENDS It( 01 £2O to £5OO One, two, or ti tion enables No inquiry of !Wonted oirected stam The Ae soci house by a to ' terms most a THE CI Author Capital Capital Reaerv( Divider The Right 11 JAM ES LE Arms-yard 1 .!,U dames AMES Chi N lde Alexander D Charles Erns Adolphe Hal Co.) Lon& I heHon. Agencyi As William Ha Bevan), Di Richard Stlu ny. London. ._Charles E. N Joseph Po Joseph Ma wn cl Co.), Old l 3 Rdward John Westn Albert G r an Com The Agra Messrs. Sr The Natio Ireland. The Antal cheater. Messrs. Government Corm Co-onerat Other Rath" .„Makes Ad Public Bodi .1 - eioirai7e - Assists ii tadertakim Makes ad ko.; , Makes ter nold Securi London, I T HE ( ISSUE 01 „The Din the Comps] Viz. In sums Coupons at' For MI For fir For set Interest June, 30th Company's made on th The dist Company subscribed, assets of t afthrding tl These D therefore p endorseme They are i and others to the Col their Ass 4 Forms /Atom all London, T TIE This Co Ot ZIO an day UNT] At 14 di At nne PUILFII Not less t l eyond 6 fleyond 9 lieyond 12 Forms Whom all 17 and I --- 113 All Inco Capital, power more 1 Deposit ( in inst not ies be giv, CRAM; a. A. Bei pool. George 1 3. Price North. John Et Liver Francis Grace, and rrederic Lewin I Joseph Comp Messrs. Messrs. Ixtortc Messrs. Mess London Mess: This tho bw 13 mak o king it the Lb Tetu Ti vision to act intere c ;c ,'i 'roll re q , Ba t sucl tie, of , tior