The Sun. — London, England, 1849-02-20 00:00:00

)ro tection ovhich was continue• witnesses• Icred as PS made lt he saw ro witnesses 3onsent DD On would )geared to et a mar ima facie iabitatien evidence ;ree wits )rovisions lici le ; for for the to extend ;ht, and a ps ought without yet been nission of 3mony to He wag e happi• untry. iestion to the mew• had re- perhaps fend that complete the fact, iplete the ause, the le Legie' s any be nuch ill hich was Almost the la+r• e, Hard mplained he law of ?cause it der, pose only 35 of the .11y mar• ly mar ould not 'sure on i 1 upon the Bill , gis trail but the It we. , gistrore /as ner ge pre referred AND) 11 read' co inks' nous° 3 00 of thil s ,lres.--- to har p v atio • O. SbUria yet have great difficulty in preserving the tranquillity. lle knew that this question was tiresome to Members who had already formed their opinions upon it; but the Bill aimed a blow at the constitution of the country in crippling the rights of the people, and be the consequences what they might, he would still persist in opposing it in every stage. But sooner or later the cause of the Irish people would triumph. True, they were now much opposed ; but what great cause had suc ceeded without opposition? Look at the Established Church and the Christian religion. Were they founded without opposition? No ; but their defenders had to put up with the severest persecution before they succeeded, and so it must ever be; so it had been with the people of Ireland, but succeed they could and must eventually. But what rendered this Bill the more disgusting was that it came l i from a Minister who was the descendant of the great Russell, who perished on the scaffold in defence of the • rights of the people; and the Noble Lord might depend upon it that the time was fast coming when the contempt of the people of England for m easures of this nature, and sympathy for the sufferings of the Irish people, would hurl him from the power he had so long strug gled for, and so much abused. He would L ask Lng , ll6ll- men if they would tolerate such a violation of the on stitut ion when universal tranquillity prevailed throughout the country ? He referred to the case of several men who had been arrested under the powers granted to the Lord-Lieutenant, and were taken te Belfast, where they were kept eight weeks withoutseeieg the op en air, and were obliged to associate with thieves and pick pockets. They were removed to a prison in Dublin, where they were subjected to the most strict regulations being refused to see their friends and to write letters, except with the petenission of the authorities, and being compelled' to fill the most menial offices. Ireland was not over-populated—the land could sustain its own people as well as the land of Belgium maintained its people. The old fe 'dal system, which they had not h a d t h e manliness to destroy,' was the bane of that count ry, and until this system were abolished the corn-laws would be found utterly inopera tive. It was tru e th e I r i sh were hungry and weak, but the time might come when they would burst their bonds and take those rights which they now denied them. Standing a s I r i s h men were on the threshold of the constitution, no man wou ld d are ag i tate f or t h e i r r i g h ts or privileges; and would they find the Irish people loyal after the course pursued? No; far oven in the north of Ireland the people were becoming discontented, when a rumour went abroad that a national tax would be levied for the support of the Irish poor. He (Mr. F. O'Connor) would ask the Noble Lord, after what had been said by the lion. Member for Montrose, whether it was possible to go on with the condition of Ireland as it now stood? It was out of the question, and what was now discontent would turn out, ere long, to be disloyalty. They could no longer govern the people by the follies and maxims taught at Harrow, at Westminster, at Oxford, or at Cam bridge. They could no longer rule the people by sueh means. Public opinion now predominated, and if it were unfairly checked the most dreadful consequences would ensue. He should give the measure every opposition in his power, and he was not asking too much of Irish Members when he implored them not to allow themselves to be humbugged, not to allow themselves to be cajoled by the Government, or the Noble Lord at its head, but to give the measure, with him, the most determined re sistance. Of the number taken into custody under the Habeas Corpus Act, six yet remained in prison, and were now in Kilmainham, after being detained in Belfast four months without being brought to trial, among cri minals of the worst description. If they were disposed to trample over Ireland, did they suppose that France or America would permit them; and when they talked of human misery and of the sufferings of Poland, they ought to remember that koland did not lose over a mil lion of men by famine. He was always an advocate for liberty not that liberty which degenerated into licenti ousness but gave peace and happiness and prosperity to the people. In days of yore if such a measure were pro posed there would have been constitutional authorities to get up and resist it; but the Whigs of the present day abandoned their former principles, and forgot the maxims of their ancestors. He would, with the pleasure of the House, read a few extracts. An HON. MEMBER—NO, no, no. Mr. F. O'CONNOR Who said " No, no?" (Laughter.) If the Hon. Member objected to his read ing the opinions of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government on the English Constitution; of those of Blackstone, Fox, Bolingbroke, Hallam, &c., then he Would with great pleasure allow the Hon. Member to read them for the House. He should not, however, in any case occupy the House more than six months—(Great laughter) —six minutes he meant. Sir GEORGE GREY—You have been already an hour. Mr. F. O'CONNOR—If he were an hour it was be cause the statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet himself, in introducing the Bill, was so defective and so erroneous that he had to correct him. The lion. Mem beru then proceeded t o rea d ex t rac t s fr o m Blackstone Lord Brogham, Fox, , and in Bolingbroke, and Lord J. Russell; referenc e to the latter, he implored the House to contrast Lord John Russell as Prime Minister with Lord John Russell in his closet, writing an essay on the Eng lish constitution. In the extract from the work of the Noble Lord, he said that when a conspiracy existed it might be wise to imprison a few of the leaders in order to suppress it, but it never ought to be put in operation against the people generally, for it would produce the most lamentable consequences. This measure was not expedient, said Blackstone, except when the State was in danger. Now, had it not been declared by everybody that the real danger had ceased? This was not the first time that the party now in power had violated the British Constitution. He hoped that there were some Saxon blood, some Saxon spirit, in that House, and that it would not sanction that measure. He had stood up for this cause, and he believed it to be the cause of justice, and the cause of justice was the cause of God. Sir GEORGE GREY apologised for reminding the ! lion. Gentleman of the time he had occupied, but took I the liberty to remind him of the resolution of the House ou that subject, of the expediency of which, if anything could have convinced him, it was the speech of the Hon. Member. Expunging all the extracts from his speech, a very small portion would remain to be answered. It sufficed to say that this measure was not to be enforced against the hundreds and thousands of the people of Ire land, but only against the leaders of insurrection, and that was consistent with the most constitutional prin ciples. That being so, and the House having, by its votes, in effect expressed its belief that the present occa sion, and the state of existing circumstances in Ireland, called for this measure, he should now simply call upon the House to adhere to its expressed opinions, and vote for the motion now under consideration.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. E. R. ROCHE said that if they were to have cercion, what were they to have to make them swallow that bitter dose? The remedial measures of the present Ministry might be summed up in this—wait till the po tato grows —in the meantime let them tide over their difficulties. All he could say was, Heaven defend them from these potato statesmen.—(Laughter.) He sincerely hoped that Ireland would never again be governed by the con -acre system.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) Ile thought that that root was mainly at the bottom of all their difficulties.—(Hear, hear.) Their system of emigration, as a measure of regeneration, was perfectly futile. He looked on all sides of the House, but nothing worth acceptance was offered. The Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) said he wished to govern Ire land in the best possible manner, but none of the Irish Members would show him how to do it. As a Repeale r , h e m i ght easily answer his question, but he would not take advantage of that ques ti on . Th e Irish Ch urc h was one of their greatest grievances. These repeated measures of coercion were another grievance. These measures prevented f them from rally ing against the Church in Ireland, ie th t t a maintenance of which not one Member could rise r place it upon a rational ground. The socialteviLuosfe Ire land were greatly owing to the interest which the land lordslrned- had in that House. They endeavoured to bring the rich soil in Ireland in contact with the poor people, but that was vain without a sound and sweeping m sure with regard to the tenure of Ireland. --(Hear, hear.) They never would need a similar measure in England. That could, therefore, be no objection. He would stop at the question of landlord and tenant. There was great room for financial retrenchment. Th e y had a mock Court ; that Court m i g ht benefit bublin, but what good dd it do the country gene. r ally? Look again at the Grand Jury Cess. There was a million and a quarter raised annually of. this money spent by these irresponsible men. Although some part of it was well spent, thousands were wasted. Were not these crying grievances in Ireland? Did they do any thing to encourage landlords to give leases to their te nants in Ireland? When thousands and thousands of Pounds were being wasted in consequence of the financial 413 d other evils he mentioned, had they not a right to e nnsplain? Instead of the present mock Court in Ire land, which did but little good, why could not her Ma 'estY Queen Victoria hold her Court in Ireland for a month or more in the year, as might suit her conveni. Z. rlee ? He asked why or how it was that all the parties finwhorn be had alluded, sitting on both sides o f th e i - e ' s lse, and differing as they did upon every other sub ' should yet all unite for the purpose of oppres sing Ireland ? It could not be with the view of grulpuillising Ireland. They never could tran suicidal!! Ireland by such means. It was too late, in the by forcible means. Above all, those who sat on the . trot]sury bench were the very last men who should in of such a measure. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) , recently actei in the capacity of a general liberator ° L nat' N a I nns, and aided the repeal of the union between a plea and Sicily. They boasted of being the repre .sitativss of the principles of Pyaa and Hampden, and Sti:lerefore in consistency they ought to refrain from pas '7. such measures.—(Hear, hear.) Mr- J, HAMILTON gave a short explanation of the flr_canastances under which Mr. Meany was removed !nal the debtor to the criminal side of Kilmainham gaol, 'cine,d, defended the conduct of the Board of Superinten "Lsin that ca se . He had himself se, n M r . M eany i n le ery comfortable room, with as good a tire as any gen ai;tllan would wish to sit near, and supplied with an undance of pens, ink, and paper. ;, Mr. HUME wou ld no t h ave addressed the H ouse, h ad ' 6 not been that the HOP. Member for Nottingham and 2tihrrs h ad addressed themselves to a great extent t o .. 4 , 03 , as if h e were an oppressor o f I re l an d. N ow, he i:r v it tedthat it was strange that he should be. found seating a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act— rhale ear, hea—but it was not without reason, for though t© been a steady advocate of the civil and political h is of Ireland, it was with regret that he witnessed s ef forts were in va i n . H e was no t i n the habit of tailunering to Hansard, but he might be allowed to quote htre eiad s i elf a quarter of a cent ur y ago , t o s h o w the views all along held on t hi s question. In 182 4 he s „„,. oat r gled for an equal i ty of civil, religious, and . ~.)!letical rights for Ir e l an d, H e said then that t h ere I t Tauld be either justice or contentment in Ireland dpulluallt Church was abolished, and the 1 political predominancy of some seven or eight hundred thousand men over the whole of the nation was di-- stroked. He then said, also, that want of employ ment was ono of the groat evils of Ireland, and that ought not to be the case while there was abundance of capital in this country. He believed then, and believed now, that English legislation had been the curse of that country, and that until justice was done to it we should continue to suffer in this. But if they cool I make those suffer who had caused this mischief it would be well, instead of bringing in those who, like himself, had not been parties to the injustice. But then he wss asked why he supported this Bill?---(Hear, hear.) It was because ho believed that unless there was quiet in that country no Government could be found who would bring in remedial measures; therefore he voted to keep the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick quiet.— (Hear, hear.) lie found that Irishmen anywhere else were excellent and active members of society, but in Ireland they were the contrary. Whatever tended to convert them into quiet citizens was a benefit. What ever tended to make such agitators as the Hon. Member, and some of those near him, silent until the Government had th eopinion, permanent introduced ame those mercy y improvement measuresof thewhich country, Ny e r e requiredwas, for the his to the Hon. Member and the country; and therefore he supported the measure, in the hope that now, when the Irish people were quiet, the Govern ment would immediately introduce such measures. Mr. NAPIER said it had not been his intention to take part in the debate, because when be beard that there were still seventeen clubs holding their secret meetings in Dublin, he thought there was a necessity for the measure, and he believed the Government would not abuse the powers with which it invested them. But as a humble representative of the Church of Ireland he felt bound to take up the challenge of the Hon. Atember op posite, and to say that on the grounds of antiquity, of scriptural truth, and of the excellence of its discipline, that Church possessed pre-eminent claims. It went back even to the days of St. Patrick himself—(A laugh)— and, putting out of sight all higher considerations, the maintenance of that church formed a fundamental article of the Act of Union, and as long as that Act was held in force the Church ought to be held inviolate. An addi tional reason why that Church should be respected was to be found in the fact that in those districts where it exercised the greatest influence, loyalty and good order were prevalent. These were, he thought, good grounds for his adherence to the national Church of Ireland. Mr. J. O'CONNELL reminded the Hon. Member who had just sat down, when he boasted of the loyalty of the Protestant districts of Ireland, that there was incen diarism in Ulster. With respect to the Church of Ire land, he must say that the speech seemed exceedingly inappropriate. The debate was not about the Church of Ireland, but the Habeas Corpus Act, and for his own part he could not see the relevancy of the Hoe. Gentle man's observations. With respect to the speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose, he gave the Hon. Member all credit for his past exertions for Ireland, but he could not congratulate him on his present conduct. He now said that he was prepared to take away the liberties of Ireland, and what was the statesmanlike reason he gave for that course? Why, to put him (Mr. J. O'Connell) down. If anything could give him an influence in Ire land which at present he did not possess, it would be the singling of him out, as had been done by the Honourable Member, for persecution individually. The Honourable Member said he wished to remove difficulties out of the way, and yet he refused the petty grant of 50,0001. to save destitute Irishmen from starvation. Such was the course of this friend of Ireland in the past tense.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the remarks of the Hon. Mem ber for Nottingham, he had to complain that that Ho nourable Member did not come forward to support him in his opposition to the Bill when he stood almost alone. He could, however, assure the Honourable Mem ber that it was his intention to resist the third reading, and if it was carried, he would then support the amend meut of the Noble Lord (Nugent), because every day that could be struck from the duration of the Act would be a mitigation of the oppression, and an abridgement of the insult which it inflicted upon Ireland. With respect to the Act itself he should at that stage refrain from saying more. It was indeed of little use, after all be had urged against it, for him to detain the House. He would merely say, that never was there a more uncon stitutional measure brought forward upon more paltry and indefensible grounds than this Act. During the sixteen years that he had bad the hononr of a seat in Parliament, he never felt more a slave than on Friday last, when the rote of 50,000/. was discussed for I the relief of Ireland. Was it not a stain lon :that House, that such a measure should have taken three nights to be discussed, and that such foul epithets were applied to Irishmen in the hour of their need and destitution ? They now had their Coercion Bill passed, and he asked where was their re medial measures ? The 50,0001. grant would soon be expended, and what then was to be done with the people of Ireland ? He asked this in the name of Heaver and of humanity. Let the House earnestly address itself to the great question of saving the lives of the perishing people, and ,they would forget all their past governmen tal tyranny and despotism. If they legislated in a spirit of humanity and justice, they would hear little in future of a repeal of the Union. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said he had ab stained from supporting any of the amendments proposed at the stages of the Bill, because he be lieved that so violent an attack on the constitutional privileges of the country could not be amended. No case had been made out to justify the imposition of so despotic a Bill, and he could not refrain from saying, that the charge made against the English Radical party in that House by the Hon. Member for Cork, was well founded, and had not been repelled by the Hon. Member for Montrose. It was too bad that the rights of a whole people were to be attacked, from an apprehen sion of one individual embarking in an agitation for re peal, which could not be carried on to the same extent that it was years ago.—(Hear, hear.) He opposed the Bill on principle, as one that could not permanently tranquillise the country or ameliorate its condition. It had been said that the province of Ulster was tranquil because of its Protestantism; but the circumstances of that district of Ireland should be taken into considera tion, and the fact not overlooked that they enjoyed a fixity of tenure in the soil, and received remuneration for whatever improvements they effected. He corcluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion. Thy' House then divided, when there appeared— For the third reading ll7 Against it 23 Majority for the third reading The Bill wail then read a third time. -94 On the motion that the Bill do pass, Lord NUGENT rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice, namely, ito substitute the words " first of June" for the words " first day of September" in the first clause. He had voted in favour of this Bill in its several stages, because he did not consider himself justified in withholding his vote from a measure of state necessity such as the Government had declared the pre sent to be, but he wished to restrict the operation of the Act to the Ist of June instead of allowing it to re main in force until the Ist of September. During the ensuing six months Parliament would be sitting and would be competent to deal with any necessity that might arise; but he appealed to Hon. Members on all sides of the House whether it was advisable to prolong the Act until a period when Parliament having sat six months would have to deal with so important a question at the very end of the session. The Government ought not to call upon Parliament to suspend for a moment . . longer than was necessary those statutes w hich more than any others on the statute-book formed the security fur thii rights of the subject. lie agreed with the Govern ment that what Ireland wanted was repose, hut the House could not look for the re-establishment of a sa- tisfactory and permanent state of repose undor the operations of the pains and penalties of this 'unsure. He would shorten the term of the extraordinary powers demanded by the Government, because he was not without a suspicion that by so doing the House would hasten the preparation of the remedial measures which the Government would bring forward. Ho entirely agreed with those who held that the personal character of the present Lord• Lieutenant of Ireland had nothing whatever to do with the question then before the House, and he thought the Government were not taking a high tone, when they sought to bolster up a measure like that by pronouncing an eulogium upon the character of Lord Clarendon. The question before the House was one which involved a highly important principle, and he hoped that a majority of that House would agree with him in refusing the powers which the Government now sought. Colonel THOMPSON rose to second the amendment, and in doing so he begged to observe, that those who supported the Government in the preceding stages of the Bill were placed in such a position, that they had no alternative but to vote for the whole measure or else lie under the suspi c i on o f b e i ng di sposed to bind tht• hands of the Government at a moment of great danger and uncertainty. With rebellion in Ireland, they could not adopt any course the tendency of which would be to weaken the hands of the Executive authority: they therefore took the course of not restraining the Ministers of the Crown with regard to thosa powers which were necessary for carrying on efficiently the government of Ireland. But in so voting with the responsible advisers of the Queen, he, and those who thought with him, wished to demonstrate that they were anxious not to permit the Executive to enjoy any power one jot beyond that which the exigency of the case rendered abso- lutely necessary. :Ile conceived the powers to be necessary, and he consented the more readily to grant them inasmuch as he had confidence in those to whom such powers were to be intrust , d. The case would he different if authority so extensive were to be intrusted to men like Jeffreys or Claver house, but in the manner in which similar powers had already been exercised he perceived a strong pledge that they would in future be moderately used. Stil!, though the proceedings of the Government might thus be au. thenticated, he saw no reason why there should not be a limitation to three months, at the end of which period the Government might ask for a renewal of the authority with which this measure invested them, provided they could then prove, as they now had proved, that there ex isted a necessity for such a suspension of the Constitu tion. It had been hinted that if the conduct of the Chartists, or any other body of men, rendered such a measure necessary for England, he and his friends would find themselves placed in an embarrassing dilemma. He believed, that there was little hazard of their being called upon to contend with any such difficulty; but, it a ne cessity of that kind arose, he presumed that lion. Mem bers near him would not be unwilling to clothe Govern went with the necessary powers. He thanked God, however, that no probability existed that any such neces sity should speedily arise. But, be that as i; might, he thought upon the present occasion Hon. Members might fairly be said to support the Government, even though they should vote in favour of the proposed amendment.; Sir G. GREY said, he did not understand the force of many of the observations which ho had heard from those who contended that the operation of the Bill ought to be redaced from six months to three. The Hon. Gentle man who spoke last admi t t e d th a t h e was very strongly c2n , ineed of the necessity of passing the measure then Wore them; and he seemed to be equally convince.] with the Government that the state of Ireland required such an Act; but surely such opinions as those formed no reason at all for assenting to the proposition of the Noble Lord opposite. Certainly some arguments had been advanced on the opposite side; but the proposition of the Noble Lord went far beyond the force of those arguments. He did not forget how earnestly it had bceu contended that it was preposterous to give six months' duration to the Bill while Parliament was tocon• time its session during the whole of that period. Buz Members, he trusted, would bear in mind that if a Bill like that were to remain open to discussion from the time Parliament assembled until it was prorogued, their would be no opportunity for the consideration of reme dial measures for Ireland. Again, with respect to the duration of the measure, he might ba permitted to ask, was it not much better than the Bill that was passed in 1822 ? In the present year the sitting of Parliament began in the month of February, the duration of the Bill was limited to six months, and thus did they pro pose to follow the shorter precedent. Tho House had, by repeated divisions, expressed its opinion that the measure then before them ought to extend over the time that the Government had thought it their duty to propose, upon this amongst other grounds, that there was reason to apprehend a renewal of the insurrection of last year. With a view, then, to prevent designs of an I insurrectionary character being carried into effect, and influenced by the reasons which he had already sub mitted to the House, he should resist any limitation of the Bill, and oppose the amendment of the Noble Lord. Mr. REYNOLDS said that those who were in the minority on the present question ought not to support the proposition of the Noble Lord, whose doctrine seemed to be that the measure was quite wrong for six months, though quite right for three, striking a sort of average. Now he must be permitted to say that he did not like this sort of tinkering of the Constitution. The Noble Lord had better at once " go the whole animal"—(A laugh)--and he (Mr. Reynolds) recommended his friends not to go with the Noble Lord. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he should not vote at all on the present occasion. Lord NUGENT pressed his amendment, when the House divided, and there appeared-- For the amendment Against it 166 ..-155 Majority ... The Bill was then passed. On the title of the Bill being read, Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved that, after the words " against her Majesty's person and Government," these words be inserted, " and also to suppress the expression of public opinion in that country." The motion was negatived without a division. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said—Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring before the House the important subject of the oaths taken by Members of this branch of the Le gislature. In the course of the last session I had the honour to propose, and the good fortune to carry through this House, a Bill for relieving her Majesty's Jewish subjects from the disabilities under which they laboured. That Bill having been rejected in the House of Lords, I now propose to take a part of the same sub ' ject, and to deal more completely and entirely with that subject. I propose that the House shall review in Com mittee the subject of the oaths required to be taken by Members; and if I am fortunate enought to obtain the con sent of the House to go into Committee, I trust that as was allowed last session, they will permit me to bring in a Bill, and to lay my scheme before the House. I should state, in the first place, that I do not propose at all to interfere with the oath which is now taken by Roman Catholic Members of this House. That oath, after 150 years of exclusion, was deliberately settled in the year 1829 twenty years ago. Roman Catholics have sat in this House, having taken that oath, and although there have been occasionally some differences of opinion as to the in ening of a part of that oath, yet I think the House and the country generally are satisfied that that oath is faithfully taken, and that it is honestly observed; and after having found that, since the admission of Roman Catholics to this House, that oath has afforded every security which it was intended to provide, I do not propose now to unsettle that part of the subject. But Sir, if I ask the House to consider the other oaths which are taken, I think I can hardly fail in inducing them to agree with me that those oaths do not answer the purpose for which they are imposed.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Those oaths, it is manifest, are not merely a declaration of opinion ; they are intended as a means to an end ; they are intended to secure the due performance of duties incumbent upon the Members of this House. It is obviously necessary that Members of this House should bear allegiance to the Sovereign, and should be ready to support the safety of the country. It may be necessary to impose other engagements, upon which I will afterwards touch ; but if it should be found that these oaths contain matter utterly unnecessary, mat ter which is ambiguous, and that they impose undue re strictions, and, in tact, bear with them exclusions against a part of her Majesty's subjects which are not justifiable —if this be the fact, I think you must agree with mo that those oaths are defective, and that they require your consideration with a view to their amendment. Now, Sir, in considering these oaths I take first th e oa th o f allegiance, which declares—" I, A. 8., do sincerely pro • mise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true alle giance to her Majesty Queen Victoria." To that oath of course I have no objection. The oath of supre macy is the next ; and here I must ask the House to listen to the opinion of Lord Eldon with re gard to that oath. In discussing the question of the admission of the Duke of Norfolk to the pri vileges of Earl Marshal, from which he had been de barred by this oath, Lord Eldon said : " With respect to the oath of allegiance to be taken by the Earl Marshal, I must say, as a lawyer, that it contains in it everything included in the oath of supree macy, and that the oath of suprem tcy was in fact added as an explanation of the oath of allegiance, or, as Lord Hale has expressed it, ' was passed to unravel the errors that had crept in.'" The opinion, then, of Lord Eldon, founded upon the dictum of Lord Hale, is that the oath of allegiance con tained all that was afterwards inserted in the oath of supremacy; and it was only from a misunderstanding of the oath of allegiance that it became necessary to add the oath of supremacy, in order to assure Parliament and the country that the oath of allegiance was under stood in the sense in which it was proposed. The oath of supremacy, as at present taken, is in these terms : " I, A. 8., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that dam nable doctrine and position, that princes excommuni cated or deprived by tho Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoever." (" Hear, hoar," from the O'Gorman Mahon, and laugh ter.) This is a part of the oath, no doubt, contained in the oath of allegiance, but at the same time certainly unnecessary for Protestants—either members of the Church of England or persons dissenting from that Church—to take. I cannot believe that any Roman Catholics would now profess sur:h a doctrine—(Hear, bear)--and it is certainly impossible to suppose that any Protestants could profess it. But the oath goes on: •` And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or autho rity, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." Now, it so happens that these words have given rise to very considerable doubt,—a doubt carried so far in the minds of two or three members of the other House that, on account of these words, they have refused to take their scats as Peers of Parliament. For my part, I conceive that the interpretation put upon the oath by those Noble Lords—one of whom has published a letter on the subject—is altogether erroneous ; but at the same time I do not much wonder at the mis- interpretation.—(Hear, hear.) All that I imagine we declare by these words is, that there is no lawful juris diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclssiastical or spiritual, residing in the Pope or any other power in this country. 1 believe, however, that those who entertain the objections I have mentioned it derstand that we affirm that no person has any jurisdic tion, pro.eminence, authority, or influence over the minds of others within this realm. It is obvious that the Pope has considerable authority and influence over the minds of those who belong to his communion, that his decrees and his decisions affect the state of the Roman Catholic bishops and ef the Roman Catholic priests in this country, in Ireland, and in Scotland; and in that s e n se it canno t b e sa id th a t h e i s w ithout spiritual .nithority. But when we come to examine the oath taken by Roman Catholics we find that that portion of it which refers to this subject is in these terms:—" And I do declare that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre eminence, di rec tly or i n di rect ly, within this realm." Therefore, while you require of the Protes tant that he shall say that the Popo has no spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, you. only require the Roman Catholic to say that the Pope has no temporal or civil jurisdiction in this kingdom.—(Dear, hear.) It seems to me obvious that, if this is a sufficient security to be given by a Roman Catholic who does pay spiritual obe dience to the Pope—who considers the Pope as the head of his church—if this is a sufficient security from a Roman Catholic who is a Member of this House, it is quite sufficient that any Protestant should make the same declaration, that the Pope has no civil or temporal jurisdiction in this realm. As the matter stands at pre sent, the Parliament, having a jealousy with regard to Roman Catholics, requires thorn to make certain decla rations with reference to the power and authority of the Pope; and having no jealousy with regard to Protes tants, it requires from them a stronger and more stringent declaration than is required from the Roman Catholics. —(Hear, hear.) And yet these words, which are, as I have said, totally unnecessary—which place the guard where it is not required—are the very words which have been found by some Noble Lords to impose difficul ties they think insuperable in the way of their acting as Peers of Parliament, and as such, giving advice to the Crown upon the grave and solemn affairs of the nati on . This, therefore, is a reason — even if there were only one person who entertained such a doubt—for taking aw a y that which is obviously an unnecessary restriction. I come next to the third oath—the oath of abjuration, which, after acknowledging the Queen as lawful and rightful Queen of this realm, goes on to say— " And I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do belive in my conscience that not any of the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James the Second, and, since his decease, pretended to be, and took upon himself' the style and title of King of England, by the name of James the Third, or of Scotland by the name of James the Eighth, or the style and title of King of Great Bri tain, bath any right or title whatsoever to the crown of this realm, or any other the dominions thereunto belong ing ; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any elle giana© or obedience to any of them." Such is the solemn declaration made by every Member upon entering this or the other House of Parliament; and let us see how this declaration arose. When the home of Hanover came to this country, and when George the First was the King of these realms, there was a Prince professing to derive his title from James 11., and cslling himself Jame; 111., who claimed the crown of these realms as a right. There was also a party, and a very considerable party, who considered his claim superior to that of the King upon the throne; and Par liament thought it necessary that every person who took his seat in either House of Parliament should not only take the oath of allegiance, but should disclaim and ab jure the title of the person who pretended to be King of these realms. In the course of time James 111., as he called himself died, and the claim descended to his sons. Parliament then, in 1766, altered the terms in which the abjuration was taken, and instead of requiring and abju ration of the title of James 111., they altered the form to that in Which it now stands, and required an abjuration of the descendants of the person who pre tended to be James 111. This was no doubt as ra tional a proceeding as could well be. In the first place, with a Pretender claiming the throne, and with a great party ready to support him, and in the first year of George I. even in arms on his behalf, Parliament, for its security, called upon every Member of Parliament to ab • lure the title of the Pretender. When he died, the Par liament again called upon every one who should take his seat to abjure the the title of those who succeeded the Pretender as claimants of the crown. But what is the case now ? Since 1807 there has been no de scendant of the person calling himself James 111., who claimed the throne of England. Cardinal York, I think, died in that year; and from that time there has not been the least necessity for the abjuration still imposed. Therefore, to require Members by a solemn oath to ab jure the title of the descendants of a person who has not left any descendants —to abjure the title of a family which does not now exist —becomes a sort of mockery of our proceedings—(Hear, hear)—and, being now brought under the notice of the House, I think the practice will not be any longer continued.— (Hear.) Every one knows that if there is any pretence to a title to the Crown it must be in the descendants of Charles 1., not in the descendants of James IL But the title of the Queen is now so perfectly well established that I think it would be only necessary to declare ad herence to the settlement of the Crown in the present family, and that it is not necessary to abjure any foreign prince—upon whom it might be difficult to fix—who might derive his title from James 11. The oath of abjura tion ends with these words;---" And I do make this re cognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian."—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, with respect to these words, I argued last year that they ought not to be continued with regard to persons of the Jewish religion who might claim seats in this House, having been elected by any body of constituents. Ido not mean to go at any length into that argument on the present occosion. I own it appears to me, after the debates which have taken place, and the able speeches which were made against the proposition I formerly submitted to the House, that the objec tions resolved themselves into this—that the Jewish subjects of her Majesty are of a different opinion in matters of religion and of conscience from Roman Ca tholics and Protestants, and that therefore they ought to be excluded from this House. Now, Sir, I must again maintain that you have no claim or right to exclude any subjects of this realm from Parliament, except upon the ground that some of their doctrines or opinions are such as to make them unfit to be Members of this House, and incompetent to perform the duties of legislation.— (Hear, hear.) For instance, with regard to the Roman Catholics, it was alleged—l will not say now whether truly or falsely—that they were persons with a divided allegiance, that they owed allegiance to the Pope, which made their allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms wholly imperfect, that they never would be satisfied with allegiance to a Protestant sovereign, or observe good faith towards a Protestant Government, but that they would be constantly attempting to overturn that Government and to give the Roman Catholic religion supremacy in this country. I will not enter into the merits of that allegation ; but, if it were true—if such a case were proved—it would be a good and sufficient reason for excluding Roman Catholics from this House.—(Hear, hear.) So again with regard to the exclusion of the Protestant Dissenters, not from this House, but from certain public offices, it was alleged that they would use the powers of office for the destruc • tion of the Established Church of these realms, and that if once admitted to office there could be no securiiy for the Established Church, but that they would never cease their endeavours to subvert and destroy that in stitution. This was an allegation of considerable weight when the question was whether Dissenters should be relieved from civil disabilities ; but with regard to the Jews no man can venture to say that there is anything in their opinions that would be hostile to the constitution of this country, or that they would use any power they possessed for the purpose of destroy ing or injuring the constitution, still less of endangering the monarchy. If this be so, it comes to be a pure and unmitigated case of persecution.—(Hear.) The denial of privileges is persecution;—persecution of the same nature as the violent persecutions which in former days were carried on by the faggots and the axe.—(Hear hear.) There is this peculiar feature in the present case —that the persons against whom your exclusion is di rected enjoy the utmost safety and security in this coun try. Attempt to-morrow to exclude the Roman Catho lics, and you have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of people in a state of bitter discontent and exasperation. Exclude the Protestant Dissenters, and you have some 3,000,000 of persons in this United Kingdom who are at once estranged from your constitution and your laws. But exclude the Jews, and you know perfectly well you are safe in that exclusion, and that you may enjoy all the triumph and all the pleasure of your persecution with out exposing yourselves to any danger from their discon • tent.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I say, therefore, that this exclusion, after the admission of Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, against whom there were plausible, though I think by no means sufficient reasons, is peculiarly odious and inexcusable. I will now state to the House what I propose as an amendment of these oaths. I have already stated, that with regard to the Roman Catholics—that matter having been so recently settled, and there being no sufficient reason for a disturbance of that settlement—l propose to make no alteration whatever. With regard to other subjects of her Majesty, I propose that there should be a general oath to be taken; and I should here say that I have taken nearly all the words of an oath penned by a Com mission which was appointed, and which made a report in 1845, which report was presented to Lord Lyndhurst. The oath then proposed to be taken by Members of Par liament is as nearly as possible that which I now submit to the consideration of the House. It is— "l, A. 8., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will maintain the succession of the Crown, as established by an Act intituled 'An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subjects;' and that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this realm; and that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm, as esta blished by the laws; and I do make this recognition, declaration, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian.—So help me God." I propose that that should be the general oath taken by Members of Parliament, but in conformity with certain Acts which have been passed, I propose that in the oath administered to Jewish subjects, members of the Jewish persuasion, the words " on the true faith of a Christian" shall be omitted.—(Hear, hear.) Now, it might be a question whether the words " on the true faith of a Christian" should be at all continued in the oath; and I own that if we required any security from this oath, I cannot think that a barrier which did not exclude such men as Bolingbroke, Gibbon, and Wilkes from Parlia ment, can be any barrier whatever—(Hear , hear)—but I am aware that advantage would be taken of the omission of these words, to say that an attempt was made pur posely to admit infidels and unbelievers, and that was the effect of the measure. I therefore continue these words in the oath. I leave, then, the Roman Catholics on the footing they now are; I propose that other subjects of her Majesty shall take the oath I have read, an oath taken originally from the report of the Commis sioners of 1845; and I propose further that when any person of the Jewish religion is asked to take this oath, the words " on the true faith of a Christian" shall be omitted.—(llear, hear.) By this means I think the measure of religious liberty in this country will be com subjects of h er M a j esty, and plete. All p ersons b e i ng inhabiti ng t h ese rea l ms, shall have th e p ower to b e elected Members of this House, and of taking their seats as represent a ti ves o f the people by w h om t h ey are elected.—(Hear, hear.) The people will thereby acquire that which they ought to bare, the full right of choos ing any person it may be their will to choose, otherwise properly qualified for a seat in this House.—(Hear, hear.) There will be no longer the stain of religious exclusion and intolerance; and the words of William 111., who learned the lesson of religious liberty in the country from which he came, that " conscience is God's province," snail be carried into effect by the oath t) be taken by Members of this House.—(Hear, hear.) While we shall no longer bear the reproach of exclud ing any persons on account of their religious faith from the privileges of being Alembers of this House—(Hear) —we shall complete that great edifice which has been the boast of statesmen, but with regard to which some have endeavoured to show that there is dan g er in throw ing open its doors too widely. My belief, however, on the contrary, is, that whether you examine the precepts of Christianity or the maxims of the Constitution, it is your duty, it is your policy, to throw open those doors as widely as possible, a nd place no r e li g i ous bar of ex clusion aga i nst any class of persons professing any par ticular religious persuasion.—(Hear, bear.) And in the belief that what I now propose to you will clear away ambiguities, will remove those parts of the oath that are unnecessary, and make your whole system defensible and justifiable in the eyes of the people of this country and of the world, I ask this House to resolve itself into a Committee to consider the oaths taken by its Members.—(Cheers.) Mr. GOULBURN regarded this as a question that ought to be discussed and decided with great delibera tion. With regar d to the oath of abjur a ti on , h e cer tainly thought it fairly open to consideration by the House ; and, for one, he would not resist the Noble Lord in his proposal for going into Committee, with a view to its full revision. He wished it to be understood, however, that in consenting to this first stage of the measure proposed by the Noble Lord, so as to enable the House to have distinctly before it what that measure really was, he protested against its being supposed that he adopted tho principle on which he had recommended it to the House. He would not discuss the question now ; but he did not see, so far as regarded the Act of Supremacy, that any reason had been shown why an alteration should be made. Tho principle of the change proposed he was not prepared to sanction ; but the most important part of the Noble Lord's speech was that which related to the admis sion of Jews to Parliament. And, here he must say. he saw no reason to alter those opinions which he had expressed last session, as to the inexpediency of that proposal. He then said, and he repeated now, that the admission of the Jests would be considered as derogatory to the character of the country, while it would diminish the authority of that House ; that it would be productive of serious consequences to the people at home, and would operate with still greater force on the extension of religion abroad.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord said the exclusion of any party from Parliament on account of religion was persecution ; but the Noble Lord, in this very measure, imposed that on Protestants and Catholics, and indeed on every other class of her Majesty's subjects, which he did not impose on Jews, all others being required to take the oath " on the true faith of a Christian." In short, religious liberty appeared to be granted solely to the Jews, while it was denied to all others. He would not oppose the House going into Committee, but he hoped they would well consider the proposal now made to them, which he believed to be one that would be derogatory to that assembly, while it would have the effect of diminish ing the sense of obligation felt by those who were called upon to bind themselves by the sacredness of an oath. Mr. PLUMPTRE thought no one would suppose that those who protested against the Noble Lord's proposition last year could be conciliated by the measure now brought forward, and he must say that even at that first stage of the measure he was prepared to divide the House against it, if it was the pleasure of any Member to go into the lobby along with him.—(Hear, hear.) He must confess that to his ears the proposal of the Noble Lord with reeard to the admission of the Jews was exceedingly offensive.—(Hoar.) The Jews were to be admitted to that House by omitting the words " on the true faith of a Christian;" and because he could utter the words "So help me God."—(Hear, bear.) He must say that it appeared to be a trick, a subterfuge, by which the Jew was to be admitted to that House. He was to be accommodated at the expense of an insult to Him whom Christians adored as their Saviour and their God—(Hear, hear)—for every one must know that when a Jew used the words " So help me God," he had no respect whatever to Him whom Christians adored as their God and Saviour,—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord spoke of there being no danger in admitting the Jews because they were so few in number; but there was no safety in taking any step by which they might provoke the Divine displeasure.—(Hear, hear.) He re peated that if any Member was disposed to view the matter as he did, he would resist the very first step in this measure by dividing the House. Mr. LAW had seen no cause to change the opinion he had formed against the measure last session. The Noble Lord spoke of its being odious and hateful op pression to exclude the Jews; but this came with bad grace from the Noble Lord as the colleague of Baron Rothschild in the representation of the city of London. In proportion as the subject was one of the greatest mo ment he asked the Noble Lord not to press the House to resolve itself into Committee within half an hour of its being informed of the nature of the measure. He sought time to consider the form of an oath which he conscien tiously believed was not six hours old. It was his con viction that when the Noble Lord rose from his bed in the morning he bad not determined what was to be the shape of his measure. It was necessary the Noble Lord should explain what he meant by speaking of the re moval of all religious disabilities, and then limiting his measure to the case of the Jews. Mr. J. O'CONNELL would support the motion, but I regretted that when the Noble Lord was dealing with this subject he had not introduced a uniform oath, which members of all religious persuasions might be able to take. There were words in the oath taken by Roman Catholics which were made a subject of annoyance to them. They had been accused of tampering with their oaths. If those bitter bickerings should be revived by those who had imposed the oath, he for one would at once acquiesce in their decision, and resign his seat in that House. Mr. BANKES expressed his disappointment at the silence of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) on this occasion, whom he had certainly expected to have heard speak, more especially as the colleague of that Right Hon. Gentleman was at this moment confined to his bed by indisposition. If they had agreed to the proposition now submitted by the Noble Lord, he could have been ready, on the first occasion, to bow to their authority; but he was now bound to say that, opposed as he was to the principle of the measure, if the Hon. Member for Kent should think fit to divide the House, ho (Mr. Bankes) would divide with him on the question of principle. It was true the Noble Lord did not put forward the prin ciple as he did last year, but involved it with other poli tical matters of inferior importance. This he hardly thought worthy of the high character of the Noble Lord. The oath, as now proposed, afforded ample security for the succession to the throne, which was not required, because that security was to be found in the hearts of the people; it also affirmed the rights of property; but there was omitted from the oath that provision which was included in the Roman Catholic oath, by which the persons taking it solemnly abjured any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment.—[Lord J. RussELL—They are not in the present oath taken by Members who aro not Catholics.] No, because when that oath was framed none but members of the Estab blished Church were Members of Parliament. Those words, therefore, were unnecessary. But the moment persons were admitted into this assembly who were not adherents of the Established Church they should, by oath, be bound not to disturb that Church. Mr. GLADSTONE—After the allusion which has been made to me by my Hon. and Learned Friend, I cannot shrink at least from stating my opinion on this subject,—(Hear, hear.) So far as regards the main pur pose which is contemplated by the Noble Lord, lam bound to say, in the words of my Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, that my opinions upon this subject have undergone no change, unless it be that they have been strengthened and confirmed by reflection during the interval that has elapsed since the last discussion of the question.— (Cheers.) I am still deliberately convinced that the civil and political claim of the Jew to the discharge of civil and political duties ought not in justice to be barred, and cannot beneficially be barred, by a difference of his religion from ours.—(Cheers.) In reference to what has fallen from my Honourable Friend the Mem ber for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), I must say, with all due, sincere, and cordial respect for him, that with my views, in voting for the admi ss i on o f th e J ews into the Legislature, we are not abandoning our duty to the Almighty—(Hear, hear)—but are acting in strict fulfilment of that duty by giving effect to the prin ciple of natural justice.—(Cheers.) But, although this is undoubtedly the main purpose which the Noble Lord has in view, still I would put it to the House whether there are not sufficient grounds for going into this Com mittee, even independently of the main purpose.—(Hear, hear.) The secondary question which the Noble Lord has introduced to us, respecting the alteration of the oath which is taken by ourselves, although it is undoubtedly of inferior importance as compared with that great con stitutional question which is raised in regard to the Jews, yet it is not in itself a question undeserving of attention; and I do, therefore, put it seriously to the House whether the alteration which the Noble Lord is desirous of making in our oath is not an improvement—and an improvement of weight sufficient to justify even those who are most opposed to the proposal in respect to the Jews in giving their assent to the proposition that the House go into Committee?—(bear, hear.) I think we must all feel that an oath of this description, taken in public by large masses of men, under associations not very favourable to the presence of the most solemn and religious feelings, has a tendency to degenerate the whole proceeding into one of mere formality; and it must,l think, be admitted, that that tendency becomes Aggravated in proportion as the oath is prolonged beyond the necessity of the case by the introduction of irrelevant matter. That in purging from this oath such irrelevant matter, and in excludiug from it that which has now come to have no rational meaning, we are pursuing a course with regard to the legality of the oath that must be an improvement, there can scarcely be any difference of opinion ; and an improvement which is by no means insignificant. It is upon tha highest authority that we are told that our words ought to be few in all those solemn acts which have peculiar reference to the Deity. I cannot but say, on reviewing these oaths and comparing the number of words with the purpose which the oaths have in view,— I cannot but say that they will admit of abbreviation, not only with advantage, by bringing them i n to a more lucid distinct, and intelligible form, but likewise with the ad vantage of bringimg them much nearer that standard of propriety according to which all oaths having a solemn end in view ought to be unquestionably framed. I therefore must express a hope that as the pur pose of the Noble Lord in this respect is quite sufficient in itself to justify the House in entering into Committee, although inferior in comparison to the other object con templated by the Noble Lord, the House will assent to the 'proposal, as they cannot thereby be committed as to the vote they may be disposed to give with regard to the principle of this measure. With respect to the plan of the Noble Lord, I will not enter into any detailed argu ment. But I cannot help expressing my own satisfaction to find that it differs in one most important particular from the scheme which was announced in some of the journals a few weeks ago. lam glad at finding that the Noble Lord proposes to retain the words " upon the faith of a Christian," in the oath to be taken by all Christians in this House.—(hear, hear.) For, considering the so • lemnity of the duties which we have here to perform, I think it is right that we should approach the performance of them under that sanction which is the most solemn sanction to us. And although we purpose to act in com mon with the Jews, yet I think, in declining to deduct anything whatever from the height of that standard by which we fix in our own minds the solemn nature of the duties we impose on ourselves, the Noble Lord has adopted a course which must meet with universal approbation. 13ut I would venture to make a suggestion to the Noble Lord with respect to a portion of the oath which he pro poses—a suggestion which I think is in the sensa of the alterations which ho himself is about to advise. Re proposes, as I understand - him, to - exclude the words from the latter clause of the oath of supremacy in which at present all Protestant members of the House declare that " no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or po tentate huh or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm;" but he proposes to sub stitute a declaration to be taken by all Protestants and Jews hereafter, that no "foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority , or power within this realm." Now, I would submit to the Noble Lord that it would be an impr ovement on his prop.isition if he omitted these words altogether.—(Hear, bear.) For what reason is there that gentlemen who are not Roman Catholics should be called upon to abjure the t em p ora l power and pre-eminence of the Pope withi n thi s realm? There may be a justification for imposinc , such a declaration up on Roman Catholics, because there may be some among that body—it is at least a conceivable case—that there may be Roman Catholics now. as there have been in former times, who think that the Pope may indirectly, but still really, be entitled to temporal power and jurisdiction within this realm ; but certainly it is impossible that this can be implied of any human being except a Roman Catholic.—(Efear, hear.) If this be so, then it appears to me that the principle upon which the Noble Lord has proceeded of excluding irrelevant and unnec essary matter from the oaths ought to carry him as far as the point which I now contem plate, and to prevent him from calling upon gentlemen who are not Roman Catholics —whether Protestants or Jews—to abjure an opinion with respect to the tem poral power of the Pope which it is virtually impos sible they can entertain.—(Hoar, hear.) The Noble Lord told us justly that such oaths were originally in troduced in the nature of a test, and not with a view of giving greater solemnity to the dis c h arge o f our duties or of laying down a higher standard of duty; that they were introduced merely in the nature of a test with the view of excluding certain parties. Now, it certainly never can exclude one who is either a Protes tant or a Jew; but it does put into their mouths in a solemn manner—when no words ought to be put there except such as were of evident utility and necessity— words which are neither necessary nor, so far as I can perceive, useful for any purpose whatever. I think it right to make this su gges ti on a t th e ear li es t s t age . With respect to the proposal which the Noble Lord contem plates, I beg to say that he shall have my support in its various stages.—(Cheers.) I, of course, cannot under take to speak on behalf of my respected colleague, to whom the. Hon. Member has referred.—(Laughter.) With respect to the immediate proposal, I do hope that Hon. Gentlemen will not debar the Noble Lord from going into Committee to propose, in the first instance, those alterations in the oaths which undoubtedly go to improve them, and which there is a fair reason for sup posing will meet with the unanimous concurrence of the House.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE felt the deepest objection to the proposal of the Noble Lord. It appeared, however, with respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, that his only objection was that it did not go far enough—(Hear)—because it retained a declaration against the temporal power of the Pope. He must say that to his mind the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentleman threw a curious light upon his general support of the measure.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Newdegate) had a proposal to make to the Noble Lord, and that was that he would consent to the ad journment of the House, in order that they might have the advantage of knowing how the resolution now stood, for he was not sure whether the terms of it had not been altered since the Noble Lord had spoken.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had proposed to retain the words "on the faith of a Christian in the case of Pro testants, and to omit them in the case of the Jews. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought that, if struck out in any case, they ought to be struck out in all. Christians did not specially need that test to secure the observance of their oath, but, as they prized them highly as a general test in the case of a Christian assembly of a Christian nation, they would defend thorn to the last.—(Hear.) He begged to move the adjournment of the House. Mr. H. DRUMMOND believed that there was not much difficulty in the mind of any gentleman present respecting a desire to do natural justice to the Jews ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had gone further than that, for it seemed that, in order to do natural justice to the Jews, the House must go back to natural religion.—(Hear, hear.) There seemed to him (Mr. Drummond) to be considerable discrepancy be tween the speech of the Noble Lord and the motion with which he had concluded ; and he entertained, therefore, some doubt as to what was the proper course to be taken on the present occasion. He admitted that there was much in the oath as at present taken that would be v ery much better left out—(Hear, hear) ; but, as far as he understood the question, it really was nothing but the old Jew Bill of last session revived ; that, whatever might be the overture or prelude with which it was in troduced, the measure itself was simply a rechauffee of the old Bill. In that case he should vote against it, as he had done before; but if the Noble Lord really desired to go into Committee on the subject, he thought it a matter worthy of consideration whether the House should divide upon the present occasion .—(Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE asked the Noble Lord whether he would be kind enough to read the oath again, and also the resolution which he intended to propose? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the fiillowing was the resolution lie intended to propose:—" That it is expe dient to alter the oaths required to be taken by the sub- jects of her Majesty, not professing the Roman Catholic religion, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Par liament, and to make provision in respect of the said oaths for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion." Upon this resolution he intended to bring in a Bill. (The Noble Lord then read the pro posed oath, which was in precisely the same terms as those already given in his introductory address.) Mr. WALPOLE asked whether the Noble Lord, sup. posing he were allowed to go into Committee, would consent to do so merely pro forma, in order that he might take the resolution, and take the discussion on a future day? Lord J. RUSSELL replied, that if he took that course he should deprive himself of the opportunity which he wished to have of now laying the measure be fore the House; but he begged to say that he did not wish the Committee to affirm anything at present beyond the general terms of the resolution he had read.—(Hear.) Mr. WALPOLE wished, in that case, to be allowed to say a few words. According to the statement of the Noble Lord, the House had two distinct propositions before it,—the one to make an alteration in the mere form of the oath, and the other to make a substantial alteration, which involved a fundamental principle. Now, he agreed with tho merely formal proposition of the Noble Lord, but he entertained strong objections to the substantial alteration—(Hear, hear)—and he consi dered that it was hardly fair in the Noble Lord to de scribe the opposition to that part of the measure as a case of unmitigated persecution.—(Hear.) Ho must also observe, that when the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) put the question upon the ground of natural justice, it was well to consider whether there had not always been a broad distinction between political rights and political duties. He wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to con sider whether the right which all persons in this country, whether Jews or Christirns, had to the protection of the law necessarily gave them those political privileges which involved duties, which duties could only, accord ing to the principles of the constitution, be undertaken, and which he thought he could satisfactorily prove could only be performed, by those who could take the existing oath. He would not go into the general question of the measure, nor say more in addition to the few observa tions with which he would conclude, and which he felt as strongly as those he had already addressed to the House. He had hoped that the Noble Lord would not have thought it necessary to renew that discussion, and that he would have postponed the question, which had been fully discussed and deliberately settled only nine months ago in the very same form as that in which it was then submitted to the House ; and he felt that the more strongly because he had always understood it was a wise policy on the part of the Government not to hazard on slight grounds any collision or disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament—(Cheers)—and it was their still wiser policy not in any way to offend or do violence to the religious convictions of the great mass of the peopl e .—(Ch eers .) B u t th ese considerations had, in his humble judgment, been most unhappily disre garded in the present proposition, for no one could doubt, if the Noble Lord carried his resolution, that he would at all events run the risk of that disagreement with the other House which was so much to be deprecated, and that if the NoWe Lord had at all inquired into the sub ject during the recess, he would have found it a painful shock to the feelings and opinions of the great mass of the country--he did not mean the ignorant and unintel ligent, but some of the best and ablest men, who re garded the proposition in no other light than that of a national violation of Christian principle.—(The O'Gor man Mahon laughed.) Notwithstanding the laugh of the lion. Gentleman—(the O'Gorman Mahon laughed again, on which there were cries of " Order")—he could assure bins he could quote sonic of the very ablest men in the kingdom, to whose works he had referred, who regarded it not only as he had already said, but still further ai a national renunciation of our Christian faith.—(Cheers.) If the religious convictions of men in this country were to be disregarded, instead of its being an unmitigated case of persecution against the Jews, it was much to be apprehended—as that laugh appeared to indicate—that the only persecution which would take place would be one against those who belonged to the Church of Eng land.—(Cheers.) Lord . J. RUSSELL—I had hoped that as the House, after repeated discussions, agreed last year to that which the Hon. Gentleman has stated to be the only point on which difference could arise this year—namely, the re moval of Jewish disabilities—l should have been allowed to introduce the Bill, and that the discussion would have been reserved to some stage of the measure in future. — (Hear, hear.) All I can do at present is to propose that the House shall now go into Committee. If the House is pleased to go into Committee I shall then propose the resolution, and put it into the bands of the Chairman. If debate should then arise, and if the Hon. Gentleman, or any other Hon. Member of th e H ou s e , thinks ne cessary to raise a discussion on that resolution, or to make that the question on which they are nthen certainly prepared to resist the proposition I shall make,. I shall discussion a t pro propose not to go further with thatt a d cem u an has, sent.—(Hear, hear.) The llon. Go this question how ever, gone further than this mere proposition, and has expressed his surprise that I should stir rn after it had been moved, and, as But,bo .s settled, not nine months ago.—(Hear, e d h a e a r .) d stoo th d ou th g e ht eon i s t ti h tu n t p io p ti on : d f the way in which I have understood this country.—(Cheers.) regarding the Roman Catholics—a that the question the Roman C at h o li c q uestion taking away som e of disabilities—had been rejected in the other House of Parliament—(Hear , hear) —and yet it doe s not appear that the Douse of Commons thought the de cis i on o f the House of Lords on that occasion an irr e .• vocable a nd irreversible veto.—(Ch eers. ) The question was again brought forward,. and th e H ouse of Lords ut last passed the Bill for the relief o f t h e Roman Catholics. I myself took part in f a measure o f t h e greatest impor tanee—the Reform Bill. It was carried by a large ma jority in this house, but the House of Lords rejected it. Why, if there is any truth in the Hon. Gentleman's doc trine. we ought then t o h ave sat down contentedly as if the question of reform was settled—(Hear, hear)—and that there should be no reform in Parliament, and we should not have ventured under the Administration of Earl Grey again to disturb the question.—(hear, hear.) I say, with resp ec t to this question, that though it has been rejected by the House of Lords, yet, with all due deference to the Hon. Gentleman, we may ask them to reconsider it, and that they, in the exercLe of their un doubted right, may reconsider it, and may give it an affirmative or negative.—(Hear, hear.) But to say that the decision of the House of Lords should be binding for ever, and that we should never bring it forward again— that is a proposition which seems to me untenable, which I T N firil cannot at all admit, and which would reverse the whole practice of this House.—(Cheers.) Having said thus much in justification of the course I have pursued, I have only to add lam sorry if any words--I have used should have seemed offensive to any Hon-. Gentleman in the House. I certainly used the words according to my h own opinion with respect to general policy of the measure, and did not wish to give offence to any Hon. Member. I have now only to oppose the motion for the adjournment, which I hope will not be pressed. The motion for adjournment was withdrawn by Mr. NE WDEGATE. The House then divided on the--snare-erection, when there appeared— For going into Committee ....- . -214 Against it ... 1.11 Majority --- 103 The announcement of the numbers w as r ece i ve d w i t h loud cheerin g . The House th en wen t i n t o C omm it tee; an d L or d J RUSSELL moved his resolution. Mr. G. BANKES understood the Noble Lord to have intimated that he did not wish to proceed further that night than moving the resolution. The division had been rather a sur prise — (Laughter)--it was hardly ex pected that night. - Lord J. RUSSELL certainly wished to proceed fur ther, but would not do so if the Hon. Member objected. The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN re ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday. ASSIZES AT BUCKINGHAM. Mr. DU PRE obtained leave to bring ins Bill to re peal the 21st of George 11. for holding the Bucks Sum mer Assizes at Buckingham, and to authorise the ap pointment of a more convenient place for holding the same. IRISH FISHERIES. On the motion of Mr. C. ANSTEY the following gentlemen were appointed a Select Committee on the Irish Fisheries :—Mr. Ansley, Sir William Somerville, The O'Gorman Mahon, Sir Henry Winston Barron, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Fagan, Mr. O'Flaherty, Sir Perey Nugent, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Alderman Humphery, Mr. Bourke, Mr. Scully, Mr. Richard Fox, Mr. Grogan, and Mr. Ormsby Gore (Sligo). Mr. OSBORNE moved for returns respecting officers at present serving on the staff of the army on home or on foreign service in the capacity of general officers or colonels on the staff; and respecting all officers appointed to the colonelcies of regiments from January 1827, to March 1848.—Ordered. Colonel DUNNE moved for returns of the different drainage works in Ireland.—Ordered. Mr. C. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in the Annual Enclosure Bill, in pursuance of the report of the Enclo sure Commissioners. Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to emend the laws relating to the appointment of Vice-Guardians of Unions in Ireland. The Object was to give the Poor-law Commissioners power to continue the guardians in office for a limited period—the 26th of next September was the period named in the draught of the Bill. On the motion of Sir W. SOMERVILLE, Mr. G. A. Hamilton was discharged from further attendance on the Irish Poor-law Committee, and Mr. Napier was added to the Committee. On the motion of Mr. Bouvxaza the Committee upon fees in courts of justice was re-appointed. Sir W. BARRON obtained leave to introduce a Bill for the more speedy trial and punishment of offenoes in Ireland. Captain BOLDERO begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which branch of the subject referred to them for inquiry the Committee on the army and ordnance estimates would first proceed? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that it was intended to proceed first with the ordnance estimates. The Noble Lord the Member for Stamford (tho Marquis of Granby) not being able to serve on the Committee at present, and being anxious to be relieved from the duty, it was proposed to substitute Colonel Anson for the Noble Lord. The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock NAVAL INTELLIGENCE. PLYMOUTH, FEB. 17.—Her Majesty's troop ship Apollo, 8. was paid wages, and sailed yesterday, to take troops from Portsmouth to Corfu. Her Majesty's steam-vessel Centaur, 6, was paid wages on Monday, and with the broad pennant of Com modore Arthur Fanshawe, C. 8., sailed on Tuesday for the coast of Africa, touching at Madeira with mails. She will relieve the Penelope, 16, Commodore Sir C. Hotham. Her Majesty's steamer Confianco arrived on Thursday from Woolwich. Her Majesty's steam-vessel Rattler was cotninissioned on Wednesday by Lieutenant Godfrey, with &comple ment of 120 men, and is to be ready to take the March mails to the coast of Africa.: Her Majesty's sloop Racer, 12, is preparing to sail on a survey of the Western Islands. A sunken rock, not laid down in the charts, has been discovered there. The Diligence transport is to take stores from the Royal William victualling yard to Portsmouth and Deptford, and the Adventure transport will call at this port from Woolwich on her way to Rio Janeiro. The Tortoise and Camel lighters arrived yesterday from Dartmouth, having been employed in raising the merchant schooner Mariner, which sunk at that port with a cargo of Indian corn ; a hemp cable of nineteen inches and a chain cable of 11 inches were broken during the process. The starboard bow of the 8-gun brig Heroine, which was found defective and rotten, has been repaired during the week. Her Majesty's ship San Josef, 110, was remoted from her moorings under the obelisk on Wednesday to be broke❑ up. The shipwrights are to commence on the Ist of March. Light southerly winds and fine weather. WOOLWICH, FEB. 111.—The Adventure, transport ship, Master-Commander Wellington, was towed dowu the river yesterday from Deptford to the Downs by the Monkey steam-vessel. The Adventure is under orders to proceed to Rio Janeiro, South America. The Janus, steam-vessel, Lieutenant-Commander Powell, is under orders to leave Woolwich for Ports mouth and Gibraltar about the Ist of March. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, FEL 19. STOCK EXCILANGE.—The market for shares has been fiat to-day. and prices are lower. The sales are—Birmingham and DlMler, 6 % p. ex int.—Caledonian, Preference, 7 per cent., 1 p.—Glasgow and Ayr, 71. 1 Is. 3d.—Great Northern (A Shares), Deferred, 4% —Ditto (h), 6 per cent., % dis.—Lancashire and Yorkshire (late Manchester and Birmingham), Fifths, 2' dis.—Ditto, Halves (late Liverpool and Bury), 6% dis.—London and North-Western, Fifths, 1% Ditto, New Quarters, 6/. Is. 3d. p.—Ditto, Quarters (C), 4% P. -- Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Eighths, 6%—Ditto, 101. Preference, 11/. Bs. 9d.-3lidland Stock, 91—Ditto, NOT Half Shares, 5F,, dis.—Newcastle and Carlisle, 110%—Scottish. Central. 21 ,—Slirewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester, 3% dis.—Shropshire Union, 21. es. 9d. dis. — South-Eastern and Dover, No. 2,9% dim. — Ditto, No. 4, Thirds, c.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E. Purchase), 6 per cent. guaranteed, p.—Dutch Rhenish, Cl. 61. 9d. dis.— Rouen and Havre, MANCHESTER, FEB. 19. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The sales arc—South-Eastern and Dover, No. 3, 2*,i —Ditto, No. 4, 7%—Eastern Counties, 1134—Shropshire Union, 2% dis.—Loudon and ,North-Western, I 4l —Chester and Birkenhead, 221. Shares, 8 dis.—Clitheroe. No. 1, s % — Grinarby, 291. Shares, 11 1-16 c. dis.—Leeds, Fifths, 2% dis.—Ditto, Preferenco,'l p.—North Staffordshire, 2q dis.—North British, Quarters, Sheffield and Lincoln, 13% dis. YORK, Fms. 17.1 STOOK EXCIIANGS.—The business transacted to-day was as fol lows:—Great Northern, 10/. 4s.—York, Newcastle, and terwiek (Extension, No. I), 211. Gs. 3 d.—Ditto, No. 2 (late New, Berwieks),, 211. Gs. 3d.—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), 9%. THE LANDED GENTRY. —The " Alphabetical Index " of 100,000 names of persona mentioned in Burke's " Genealogical History of the Landed Gentry of the United Kingdom," has just appeared, a production altogether unique in the annals of publishing, and-form ing a most valuable adjunct to the history itself. The great utility of this work to professional men can scarcely be appreciated, considering the assistance it will afford theta in their researches respecting the members of dif ferent familie s , h e i rs to property, &c. ; indeed, it Wi ll become as necessary an appendage as a directory in every lawyer's office. SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE ELEcTiosir.—LICHFIEL D, -F. Mownar.—The e l ect i on of a Member to re present ,ini_ division of th e county of Stafford in Parliam ent, in ili room of Lord I ngestre, took place to-day. L Lewis ham was the only candidate. A host of friends w ere present. The writ aedan ker, of Walsall, having been rea d , Ai r. C . S . F ors t e r, b r , an a ddress of sora e the Noble Lord's Bribery Act the immediately cam e f orwar d, andafte length to th e mee ti ng , conclude person d to by proposing his Lord. represent the South ern Division of the county ship as a fit and proper e t o M a y or of Wolverhampton, end one of the greatest ironmas o f Stafford in Parliament. M r . a G. B. ThornaYer°'" tZ.rs of the district, seconded the posed, Lord nomination. No duly elected, II: L • Ilia Lo r d s hip Lewisham was the electors; after Which th en briefly address ed the _.ll, for his a TOW of ination. No other candidate being pro High Sheriff for his conduct, broke up. At the and the meeting proceedings a splendid luncheon Was provided at the Lowisha thanks was voted . to tii Swan Hotel. Lord tn presided, and about 110 gentlemen sat down to the entertainment. D, Ani OF SIR THOMA.B BURNETT BART.—Sir Thomas Burnett, the eighth Baronet, of ' Lays, county Aberdeen, died on the 16th instant, at Crathes Castle, Kincardine, at the age of 61. Sir Robert 'u Lieute nant and Sheriff Principal of the shire of Kincardine, and succeeded to the Baronetcy in January, 1837. DEATH OF MR RICHARD HARLEY, OF THE SEA MEN'S HOSPITAL SOCIETY.—It is with sincere regret that we have to announce the death of Mr. Harley, the secretary of the Seamen's Hospital Society. Mr. Harley has filled the office of Secretary and collector to this ex cellent institution from its first establishment, now twenty-eight years ago, and has laboured moat zealously and indefatigably in the advancement of its interests . and in the promotion of its usefulness. In the death of Mr. Harley the Seamen's Hospital Society have lost a most valuable servant, and the seamen —for whose benefit the society was instituted—a most faithful friend. We re gret to add that a large family of orphan children have to deplore the loss of a kind father, whose integrity and estimable character made him universally respected. Shipping Gazette. SOUTH AMERICA. —We have advises from 11 :1 1 8 1 ; nab to the 17th ult. Some sugar plantations sit uat ed near near Matanzas had been burnt down. We h ave late advises from Port-au-Prince. The A s ra tr e u nu'l" ck at that Con sul at Aux Cayes had been insulted aid had gone from meat. A French and British man-ef- ear place by one of the blacks, which cau s e d great exci te. t h a t account. The Port-au-Prince to Aux Cayes on Government were making former had returned. take t h e S pan i s h part of dplaced double guards a t the island. The authorities ha d guar preparations to send troops to to Port-au-Prince. POOR -LAW IN SPECTOR.—Mr. of the Nenagh un i on, died on J. Ds.EDA,TAHreovir inspector A N OriiE R Friday of ty - p ' hus fever, caught in the discharge otitis duties. Mr. Flanagan, a pour-law inspector in the western provinces, was also dangerously ill of fuer. 11 1 THE SUN,' LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1849.: )uld tbi