The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-12 00:00:00

THE MINISTRY AND THE MANCHESTER ELECTION TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,—It is confidently believed that we are on the eve of an election in Manchester as soon indeed as the arrangements can be completed for the eleva tion of Mr. P. Thomson, one of our representatives to the Presidency of the Board of Trade. The consequences of a defeat, should such a thing occur, will be disastrous to the ministry in the extreme, as it will imply a vote of censure upon them from a numerous and enlightened body of men. The friends of the right hon. gentleman are already canvassing, but so far as the public temper has yet been tried, it is very doubtful if his return can be secured. The neck and neck contest at Leeds, between a long tried Reformer, and an avowed Ultra-Tory Nets one lesson, and the rejection of Sir J. Ces'Aphell at Dudley another still more striking, and should these be followed by the defeat of a tniulsterial atticl e here, the moral hold of the present Government upon the country will be materially loosened. This we shall regret on account of the great cause of libe ral principles, but it will not surprise us. The mi nistry, by a strange frtality, has been progressively alienating its friend% and strengthening the hands of its enemies, and the battle has every appearance awe of ending in Whig discomfiture. One thing is quite certais:l—that if any gentleman of moderate principle's enters the field here, unconnected with the Cabinet, he will be returned by a triumphant majority, and it is even questionable whether a Tory weuld not be equally successful, as that interest is powerful, and he would be supported by the Ultra- Radicals, and by many individuals who are deter mined, at almost any sacrifice to get without the ministry, constituted as it now is. The mode in which Mr. Thomson's election was secured when his party were riding on the gale of popularity, when, indeed, to be connected with go vernment, however remotely, was a certain passport to public favour, is well known to all those who at tend to political affairs. He had been returned for Dover in opposition to Mr. Halcomb, who is now in the house, and was got in here by the aid of the dissenters, and by the split of votes amongst the other candidates. It was a well-managed contri vance, but though successful it was considered only as a pis alley, by the intelligence of the town. But bow do ministers stand now ? The corn laws strictly upheld, a miserable pittance of relief granted to dissenters, in fact, a mere nullity, such half and half measures being worse even than nothing, and the decided expressions of Earl Grey upon the dif ferent points at issue between the church and dis senters. These have completely destroyed the hopes of this influential, or rather all powerful, class as to any fair relief to be obtained from the present Ca binet, and have roused the ire of the most moderate. Added to these are other and wider causes of com plaint. An impression is abroad that there is a want of sincerity, or at least of unanimity, amongst mi nisters. important questions are brought forward so loosely as to indicate either lamentable weak ness or the most culpable negligence, and hence they ever appear bordering on destruction. This weakens the confidence of their best supporters, and men of talent and intelligence are anxious to see some modification which would give them a govern ment having the appearance of stability. The mis chief caused by this vacillation and uncertainty is inconceivable, and if ministers still hold the belief, that by having passed theßeform Bill,they have se cured a !ewe of their offices, and may repose in su pine security,they are mistaken. Many of the bills brought forward, too,under their auspices,hear marks of such haste and crudeness, that all men of reflection unite in condemning them. One pressing particularly upon the manufacturing interests is of this character, the Factory Bill, and it is exciting the most invete rate hostility towards its framers. Mr. P. Thom son, may, perhaps be able to explain away these things, and a variety of other discrepancies which have been witnessed with pain and contempt by the well wishers to government. We would give them one hint, that tinkering bad bills, is not what is wanted; we require statesmanlike views and sound measures. There is another point connected with the present unfavourable position of the ministry, and this is the extraordinary distribution of the patronage placed in their hands. We look upon this as a public trust, and one which, if properly managed, is well calculated to benefit its directors and the country at large. - What has been the conduct of the administration in this respect ? Where nepotism has not swayed it, the best recommendation has been nullification and opposition, but the most certain mode of procuring attention is a word from a Tory leader. The ques tion resolves itself into this, is it intended by go vernment that liberal measures should be pursued ? and if so, is it not absolutely necessary that official situations should be filled by liberal men ? How does the case stand ? The appointments of Mr. Gleig, Lord Ingestrie, and a multitude of others, are a sufficient answer. But it is not these open and avowed examples that do all the mischief, the same system pervades the whole frame of govern ment. We have lying before us a list of upwards of thirty names attached to appointments within a small circle around us, some more, some less im portant, and what are they ? With the exception of half-a-dozen, who are of the illustrious obscure, all are laudatores tenzporis acti, except in so far as their present situation is concerned. Now we know that several gentlemen of acknowledged talent, men who have employed body and soul to secure the tri umph of the good cause—men who have devoted all their mental energies, through the medium of the press, to awaken conviction, and to proselytize their immediate neighbourhood—men who have nobly sacrificed private feelings and preju dices to principle ;—we say that we know that such men,relying on their services, have applied, in more instances than one, for situations to which their ta lents and information gave them an overwhelming claim, totally independent of every other considera tion, and yet these men have never received the slightest notice, not even the civility of a reply, whilst others, utterly incapacitated, have walked comfortably into them, on the strength of Tory re commendation ! Well, indeed, may this party re joice; well may it sneer and laugh at those in power. And is this right—is it reasonable ? We can only say that Mr. P. Thomson will find, that it is considered neither right nor reasonable, and that several who have more than once devoted their services to his support, will either remain neuter, or, if any proper person is brought forward to oppose him, will throw the whole weight of their influence against him. For ourselves and others we declare, that if any government ever owed gratitude to the press, it is the present. It lives only by the force of public opinion, and it has been rescued from annihilation once and again by means of this organ, aided simultaneously by the intelligence and activity of its contributors. Has it repaid this debt ? We say, no, and what is the consequence ? These men, if not dirippointed, are bitterly offended. They see patronage lavished upon individuals whose sole merit is, being connected with the opponents of free and enlightened institutions, and can it be wondered at that they are beginning to hold aloof ? They argue, either that government is insincere, or so weak as to be obliged to bribe its enemies. A weak government, which has yet the elements of strength, is not worthy support. A government, to be stable and respected, must have one guiding and presiding spirit, the Ate: o; ::ca of the Pythagoreans. This is deplorably wanting in the government as it now stands. Every man, like Harry Wynd, seems fighting for his own hand, and weakness and divi sion are the consequence. A government that is obliged, in order to retain its position, to truckle to its opponents, and play into their hands, and which all men can see is kept there solely till events are ripe to displace it, every honest and enlightened man will lend his aid to overthrow. We are, and have been, fiiends to government, and the above remarks have been written rather in sorrow than in anger. The political occurrecces of the last few weeks ha'e, however, galled us to the liulek. We have se•en, with shame and sorrow, an administration Which, a few months ago, had almost the e: Lire power of the nation to support it, bandied about from hand to hand, and at length forced to throw itself on the mercy of an unorganised party. The noble confidence once felt and expressed in its favour has been frittered away by a series .of imbeci lities utterly unworthy any gov6nment. Its actions have been suicidal, and have destroyed its best friends. We would warn ministers to be wise in time. Mr. Thomson's rejection is certain unless he comes amongst us prepared for explanation. Let him tiOt flatter himself with the idea that the mere party that floated hm through before, can do so again. 'We tell him that it cannot, the conditions of the tyro periods are widely dissimilar, and a defeat iii this quarter will be hailed as a victory calculated to lead to the most important results. March 6, 1834. MANCIINIENSIS. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter pact five. Mr. TYNTE presented a petition on the subject of the law of libel. Mr. TANCRED was proceeding to give notice that he would move for the committing of a petition which had been presented yesterday, when he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who reminded him that on Wednes days orders took the precedence of notices, and conse quently any member who wished to oppose the bon. gen tleman's notice would he taken by surprise, from its being introduced in that unusual manner, upon which Mr. Tan cred withdrew his notice. Sir FRANCIS VINCENT presented a petition on the Tats of libel from a person named Richard Morrison. Mr. BROTHERTON moved for a return of the num ber of causes in the Court of Requests, and the sums expended thereon during the period from 1805 to the present time, distinguishing the sums each year. Lord GEO. SOMERSET presented a petition from Chepstow, which the noble lord said was respectably signed, in favour of the established church ; and one like wise from the borough of Hertford hoping that that bo rough would not be disfranchised. The petition was signed by upwards ,of 300 persons; it was adopted at a meeting during the last summer, though the presenting of it was delayed till the present time. BRIDGE OF ATHLONE (IRELAND). Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the Grand Jury of the county of Roscommon, praying the house would devise some means to have the bridge of Athlone putiin a proper state of repair. FISHERIES (IRELAND). The hon. member then presented a petition from the fishermen of Thntry, complaining of the want of em pioyment, and praying the house to take their case into its early consideration ; also a petition from the inhabi tants of a parish in the county of Stafford, for the bet ter observance of the Lord's Day. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland whether his Majesty's government intended to adopt any measures relative to the Irish fisheries? Mr. LITTLETON said be was tnot aware of any measures being in contemplation. . . Mr. IIALd0:11B moved for certain returns relative to the state of the harbours on the coast of Kent.—Ordered. CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the inhabitants of Bridgewater and its vicinity, in support of the esta blished church. The petitioners conceived that they were called upon at the present time to show their devotion to the interests of the established church. The hon. baronet observed that the petition presented a very strong contrast to some that had been lately presented on the other side. The petitioners were not adverse to any alterations in spiritual matters:which the lapse of time, or other cir cumstances, might render expedient, but they respectfully prayed that such alterations may not take place under secular but spiritual authority.—(Hear, hear.) They were not adverse to a proper distribution of the revenues, but they protested against any alienation of the property that had been bequeathed by the piety of their ancestors to the established church or to any other purposes. Mr. D. W. HARVEY would regret if there were not petitions of a very opposite natnre presented to that house. What did that petition suggest? Why, that the religious belief of the people of that country should be determined by some convocation assembled to decide upon spiritual matters.—(Hear.) He trusted the dissenters would well understand the objects of that petition, and he for one would protest against such an absurd proposition. Sir R. PEEL said the hon. member had totally mis taken and, by a natural consequence, totally misrepresented the prayer of the petition. There never was so great a mistake as the hon. member had made.—(Hear, bear.) The petitioners did not propose that any religious convoca tion shou!d he assembled, and the hon. member need not be under any alarm, as he should still be at liberty to en tertain whatever religious opinions he pleased.—(Hear, hear.) All they suggested was, that, if alterations were necessary, they should be made under the direction of the spiritual superiors of the church. Mr. D. W. HARVEY, notwithstanding what the right hon. baronet had stated, considered that he was perfectly correct in representing the hon. baronet as having said the petition wished to have all proceedings regard ing spiritual matters referred to a spirifual body, and he would only farther tresapass upon the house by returning his warm thanks to the right hon. baronet for the expression of his disposition to allow him and all his Majesty's subjects to entertain whatever creed of faith they might think proper. Sir R. PEEL had said, which he repeated, that the hon. g,ntbaman'ts statement was a complete misrepresen tation, inasmuch as he had stated that the petitioners desired to dictate to others the creed of faith they should entertain. Lord SANDON presented a petition from an inha bitant in Liverpool, praying that he, as a voter for that borough, and others, against whom no crime had been imputed, might not be deprived of a valuable right in consequence of the misconduct of others. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF HERTFORD. Mr. BERNAL moved the order of the day for the se cond reading of the Borough of Hertford Disfranchise tnent Bill. In moving the second reading of this bill, it was not his intention to travel over all the ground that had been beaten during the last session of Parliament, regarding the conduct of the electors of the borough of Hertford. The house would remember a committee bad been appointed to inquire into and decide upon the merits of the election that had taken place for the borough, and that a special report followed.—(Cries of " Hear hear.") —That special report became matter of debate in the house ; and the result was a reference to a special committee to consider of the best means to prevent acts of bribery and corruption at future elections. Since that time the special committee had made its report, which had got into the hands of every member in the house.—(Hear, hear.) That special report recom mended the passing of a bill to carry into effect the report of the former committee. There were various classes of voters in this borough, some of whom had been guilty of the grossest acts of bribery, and others against whom no acts of misconduct could be im puted; and it was absolutely necessary that a measure should now be carried forward to prevent a recur rence of such transactions as bad disgraced that borough. The bill, for which he now proposed the second reading, was to disfranchise the whole body of householders and freemen, leaving the class of freemen he had mentioned untouched, and the 101. householders under the old franchise also untouched. The body of freemen at large were not bound to have been to any very great extent participators in the corrupt practices which had been:going on in the borough of Hertford, and it was found to a very small extent ,such practices hadj prevailed in the body of 101. householders. lie did not wish to disguise front the house the different plans that were mooted before the committee. It appeared that at the late election 671 votes voted, the number of the constituency being about 700. Three hundred and fourteen were inhabitant how:- holders under the old franchise ; 264 were occupiers of houses of 101., and 124 voted solely in the right of free men. The Lon. gentlemen who took a part in the first discussion would doubtless remember that a great deal of corrupt practices was mixed up with the question on that occasion. The committee who sat the second time thought proper to call a person of the name of Back, who it was said bad been one of the bribery agents. He (Mr. B.) considered that it was the borough of Hertford they had to deal with and not with individuals. A great deal came out incidentally in the course of tie examination respecting the distribution of fluur and tea, and of other articles, which were distributed not in the way of charity but as gifts, and were admini stered from purely corrupt motives.—(lfear, hear.) It appeared t h a t an agent was concerne d in distri buting certain quantities of flour and other things at the houses of various voters. It appeared from a calculation which had been made by Mr. Dock that Pour and coals had been delivered to about two hundred and thirty-eight of the old inhabitant householders, to 26 of the freemen, and to 28 of the 101. householders; so that, from the evidence, it appeared that the greater part by far of the old class of inhabitant house holdere participated in those corrupt practices, but compa ratively few of the freemen, and a more limited number o f the new voters.—(Hear.) That was the short history of the case. It was proved -in the course of the evidence, that the gifts were not mere charitable donations, but were given fin- the purpose of operating as a corrupt influence over the minds of the electors. The Con s mittee, anx'ous to di sc h arge th e ir duty faithfully, in order to make a proper report to the house, had thought fit to employ a gentleman of great experience and knowledge, Captain Browne, an officer of engineers, to go to Hertford and make out a map or plan of the parishes lying contiguous to th e to wn o f H e rtford, and which it might he the most conv e ni e nt for the purposes of an electi o n to add to the town. The result of that survey was the map that was appended to the report ; he should here observe, th it the first map was incorrectly printed, but there was now a correct one. The parishes proposed to be joined to Hertford lay in a certain radius of the town of Hertford—no one parish, even in its extreme limits, was more than five miles fioin the town, and a great part of the localities did not lie beyond the distance of three miles from the town. The only desire in recommending that plan, was to obtain a pure and incorrupt representation of the borough of Hertford, and the addition of those parishes would add 618 voters to the constituency of that borough. Ota of this 618 it was said that 113 had a right of vot ing for the county. But let not honourable geut emen suppose that, by giving these men a vote for the bo rough of Hertford, they would be deprived of the right of voting! for the county ; on the contrary, it stood to reason that they would have a freehold in some other port of the county, and would be thus entitled to vote for the country. After the best consi deration and inquiry, he was fully satisfied that the greater part would preserve their right of voting. I t might be said that some better mode might be adopted to enforce the object of the committee. It was very p os . sible ; but his answer to this was, that the committee had had a very difficult task to discharge; they bad discharged it to the best of their ability.—( Hear, hear.) And if any errors were pointed out, there would be as opportunity of correcting them. When they CRITIC to a Committee upon the bill, it would be competent to any gentleman to suggest any improvement or objection, an d he for one would be happy to consider them. He h ope d that it was too late to say that no notice should be taken of these corrupt practices—(Hear, hear) —or that no usually should be applied to those practices which in their consequences were fraught with evils of the most injurious nature.._( Hear, hear.) With respect to a person of the name of Russell Davis, who had been convicted of per jury in the Court of King's Bench, in consequence of the evidence he had given at the Hertford election, he (Mr. B) would only say that his evidence had never been received by the committee : they had completely discarded it, and, at the very opening, he confessed that there was not one gentleman on the committee who thought this indivi dual's evidence admissable. His evidence had no more weight upon the decision of the committee than the most light feather of the smallest bird that flies.—(Hear.) Some gentlemen bad expressed a design of throwing an other member into the county ; but be was for keeping up an equal balance of town and county representation.' He thought the house was bound to make the Reform Bill a wholesome and salutary measure, and therefore he trusted that no gentleman would get up and object to the second reading of this bill.—(Hear, hear.) The house had sufficiently committed itself by sending the bill up stairs, and all that retnained to be done now was to adopt the remedy suggested. Lord G. SOMERSET could not agree with the hon. member that because the house agreed to an enquiry it was bound to agree also to the second reading of the bill. On all former occasions, bribery of the most gross kind was the ground of a measure of disfranchisement. He also had the sanction of the present house of Commons for saying that, in a case of the most gross and glaring bribery, it was enough to satisfy the justice of the mat ter that one individual only should be prosecuted. He alluded to the case of Newry.—(Hear, hear.) That was a case in which great corruption was proved ; and yet that was all that was ordered by a reformed House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see why one measure of justice should be meted out to one borough and another kind to one that was proved not to be so corrupt. The disfranchisement of 300 indi viduals, whatever their station in life, was a matter of very considerable importance, and was worthy the attention of that house. There was a considerable difference be tween bribery and treating, and, in his opinion, there bad been nothing proved against Hertford that at all amounted to legal bribery.—(Hear.) In the borough of Hertford the hon. member opposite had in a very handsome manner expressed his disbelief in the evidence adduced by a person named Russell Davis.— (Hear, hear.) As far as he remembered the evidence that had been given before the committee upon the subject, he did not believe that any case of bribery had been brought forward, with the exception of the case of Russell Davis, and the money that was given to him was clearly proved to be given out of charity. He thought that when the house were about to disfranchise 200 or 300 peor men, and thot too upon a point which the Legisla ture, by its statutes, and by the decision of its committees, had concurred in it, should pause before it inflicted such severe punishment—(Hear)_and use every endeavour to purity the borough, instead of disfranchising it. He was not one of those who did not think that offences of the description to which the hon. member opposite had adverted td should not be properly punished, but he thought some other punishment than that of wholes Ile disqualification should be resorted to. Mr. CALVERT opposed the second reading. Sir ROBERT PEEL said he would vote fur the se cond reading. (LETT SITTING.) ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—• WORCESTER, MARCH 10. (Before Mr. Justice PAitx.) Abel Griffin, an elderly man, who wore a white night cap, J. Quinlan, a sweep, in the costume of his order, T. Williams, an idiotic-looking lad of squalid appear ance, and four other persons, who seemed to have been called from some corps as respectable in its garb as Sir John Falstaff's ragged regiment, were charged with rioting at Dudley during the late election. The defendants were all understood to have been sup porters of Sir John Campbell's interest. Mr. Blakeway said, 1 am a grocer at Dudley. At the last election Sir J. Campbell was yellow, and Mr. Hawkes blue. On the 27th of last mouth there was a great crowd at half-past three o'clock. I had closed my fhop, but the mob from without took down my shutters and smashed all my windows. I had starch, spices, plums, and figs in my windows, which were all gone when the mob left. The mob who bad sticks were 2,000 in number. John Jones said, I saw the prisoner Flaxell in the mob. He took stones out of his pocket and threw them at the windows of the prosecutor. The Riot Act was read. The military arrived from Birmingham, and the crowd dispersed. William Round—l saw the prisoner Davis in the crowd with a stick. A great many of the mo b h a d st i c k s . ___ . _ . Cross-examined by Mr. CARRINGTON—The prisoner was very " beerified."—(A laugh ) Sarah Westwood—The prisoner Quinlan (the sweep) is in my father's employ. I saw him breaking Mr. Robin son's windows with a stick. Cross-examinc 1 by Mr. Godson—Quinlan is a Scotch wan. Mr. Justice PARK — It is very natural that he should Le attached to his countryman. It appeared by the evidence of other witnesses that the prisoners Capewell and Williams were active in the mob, but that both were subject to fits. James Craig, the constable of Dudley, said—l heard Mr. Forster tell the prisoner Davis to go home, as the Riot Act had been read, and he would get into a scrape. He said, the Riot Act the magis trates, we will have Campbell, or blood for supper !"—(A laugh.) Mr. ustice PARK—Campbell, for supper, would be rather a tough morsel.—(Continued laughter.) Mr. Sheldon Gray said—l am a liquor merchant. I had closed my shop, bnt the mob broke my shutters, and left me not a whole pane. There were coloured barrels in the window. They were show barrels. Alr. Justice PARK—They were sham. I dare say those at the gin shops are just the same. Examination resumed—One of the mob drank some vi triol and water out of one of the show bottles.—(A laugh.) Joseph Jewkes said—l am a constable. I saw the pri soner Griffin (the man in the nightcap). I advised the mob to do no murder, and I intended to have said the same to him, when he knocked me down. Mr. Just ce PARK said that this was not a slight case. The friends of liberty, as they called themselves, ought to allow other people to have their own opinions, without destroying their property or injuring their persons. With respect to all the defendants, except Griffin, it was proved that they were joining in the riot; but with regard to Quinlan, it was stated that he was a Scotcbman, and very much excited in favour of Sir John Campbell, who was said to be also a Scotchman; indeed it had been said by some people that his dialect showed it. The Jury found all the defendants Guilty. Sentence—Tbe defendant Griffin to be imprisoned one year; the two persons subject to fits to he discharged, and the others to be imprisoned for terms varying from two to four months. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAitcur 11. OATHS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. (Mr. O'Connell's Speech concluded from our Second Edition of yesterday.) ---------There was changed at the revolution, and why ?—because no tole ration or liberty of conscience would be granted in Scot- I ind till the oath was altered. No member of the Presby terian church would swear that the King was head in spiritual affairs, and, accordingly, to meet their scruples the oath was altered, so that it became a mere oath of ne gation, of spiritual dominion in any foreign prince, pope, or prelate. It was no longer an oath of supremacy, but a denial of any spiritual jurisdiction. This satisfied the Presbyterians, and combined the churches of England and Scotland—the consciences of both were satisfied, and from that period to this the oath had remained unaltered. But that was equally repugnant to the Catholics, for while they could not admit the supremacy of the crown, they could not acknowledge the church of Scotland. In the Irish parliament, during the reigns of Elizabeth, Charles I. and Charles 11., it was not necessary for any member of the Irish parliament to take the oath of supremacy. It was quite true that at the restoration in the month of M y, 1661, a resolution passed in the Irish house of Commons that the oath of supremacy ought to be taken, but that turned out to be a dead letter until the revolution. The English parliament in the 13th and 14th of William, passed an act, not for England at all, for England was not mentioned, obliging the Irish Parliament to take the oath of supremacy and ab juration, and from the 2d of William and Mary up to 1782 those oaths were required in Ireland although they were not taken. An act was then passed giving efficacy to all the laws passed in England with regard to Ireland. But he was certainly not now going into any controversy upon the omi,sion of legislative sanctions which were taken for granted up to the year 1829. He was going through this historical sketch merely to show that it was not necessary in the House of Commons that any religious oaths should be taken. They origi nated in religious dissensions, and when those dissen sions ceased there was no more occasion for them. In 1829, considerable alteration was made. In that year an act was passed, which established the oath which was at present taken by the Roman Catholics; and by the same act another very excellent alteration was made by striking out of the oath taken by Protestants, the declaration that the worship of their fellows, the Catholics, was impious and idolatrous. That was an excellent altera tion, for it would not have been pleasant to have sat and heard the old oath administered. There were, however, still some strange anomalies between the oaths taken by the members of that house. On one side of the board he saw three oaths that were required to be taken by the Protestant, while on the other side, be found only one that the Catholic was required to take. The Protestant was called upon to ab jure the house o, Stuart, while the Catholic was not. Now, he had always understood that, in point of politics, the Catholics were the class of persons who were most likely to have a leaning that way ; be should have thought the Common sense view of the matter was, that that oath should have been extracted from the Catholic, while the Protestant should have been exempted from it. Protestants were also called upon to swear that they would never bear any allegiance to any descendant of James II Now how stood the fact? Why, that no such descendant was in existence. Was not that taking God's name in vain? Would it not be more in accordance with the spirit of the present day that all members should be required to take one oath only, that of allegiance to the crown ; that was an oath in which all could join—no Protestant would refuse it, and no Catholic had the slighest objection whatever to it.—(Hear, bear, hear.) That Catholic oath in its former part was an oath of fidelity and allegiance. He saw no objection to that, though it was certainly different to that adopted by Pro testants. The Protestants and Catholics did not equally swear upon the same subject. He was as ready to testify his allegiance to the heirs of the Princess Sophia, being Protestants, as if the oath had been ad ministered to him ; but there was a part of the oath which he considered a complete insult :—" And I do fur ther declare that it is not any article of my faith that any princes excommunicated by the See of Rome may be de posed or murdered by their subjects, or any person what soever." Why should the Catholic be called upon to swear? He should have no objection to make the declaration—(Hear, hear)—and what right, he would a , k, had the house to insult him by calling upon him to take such an oath ? Was it possible, be would ask, for any man to be so destitute of moral feeling as to con sider that he bad a right to murder any man because the Pope had excommunicated him?—(Hear.) In his opinion, the oath would be no sanction to any man who believed in anything so monstrous and unjust. He called for a committee to inquire whether such an oath was necessary ; if it were, he would bend his neck to the yoke—he would submit. But he denied that it was necessary, and therefore he considered it im perative on him to call the attention of the house to it. He had the most ineffable contempt for the doctrine implied in that oath. Regarding that part of the oath wherein the Pope's jurisdiction is renounced, he (Mr. O'C.) had no objection. He would pledge his most solemn sanction to that—but if it were necessary to swear resistance, even unto death, of any civil interference in those realms, there was no protestant half as anxious as he (Mr. ('Connell) was to take such an oath,— (Hear, hear.) But what dread did any rational person entertain of the temporal power of the Pope ? Heaven help the maniac who could imagine that the Pope, who was trembling for his own small dominions, could put the temporal authority of those kingdoms into jeopardy. Was it not a sensible thing to think that those realms should at any time be invaded by a regiment of Cardinals, and a squadron of Friars turned into riflemen ? The oath then went on—" And I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of ray power the settlement of pro perty in this realm, as by law established." That pre vented his making any alterations in the law regarding property, but it was an undoubted fact that that law had been frequently altered. He could mention an in stance in which, by an act passed (luring the last year, a gentleman became the inheritor of property to the amount of 4,0001. a year, which he could not inherit as the law previously stood, and of which he had not the most remote prospect of enjoying. Therefore that oath was quite absurd, and the man who took it that year would have a different impression on his mind from the man who took it the previous year. He only threw that out to show how far equivocation would go as regarded that oath. The argument he (Mr. O'Con nell) used had been used on a former occasion with re spect to the coronation oath. What millions of pamphlets .—what masses of arguments and thousands of speeches had been used regarding the violation of the coronation oath, all turning on the mere equivocation of the words, or the different interpretations which different individuals might give them. Did it require the Catholics any more than the Protestants to swear that they would defend the state of property ? If they did net swear the Pro testants, why did they swear the Catholics ? --(Hear, hear.) The oath then went on—" And I ab a j s ur b e y an la y w in e t s e t n a - . inten tion hereby o subvert disclaim , t he disavow, church blished within the realm." The same solution might be applied to that as to the former paragraph ; and here again he would adduce tbe occurrences of last year, when Ministers had passed the Church Temporalities Bill, a bill which had unsettled the church establish ment more than any act that had taken place since the r evolution.—(Hear.) What be (Mr. O'C.) required was a committee which would put an end to these equi vocations. The oath went on—" And I do solemnly swear that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may be entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant re ligion or Protestant government within the realm.' Wha was tbe meaning of Pro'estant government now in wthhe mighte h theba: Chancellor—the Catholics ct f sh i e a t h m ee gxamocnveaep:rta magistrates, exception n s r fi aent e oe d tf: to swear that govern. might be Catholics, the entire of the judicial seats might be I nC n aavt p yh O o i lt n ihe t s; of law all who were admitted into the Govern t w h e is a co n u , a n s t country? ment, with the exception of the Chancellor, might lie Catholics.—(Hear.) Was it safe, then, to swear that such a government Was a Protestant government, whet, there were only two--the King and the Chancellor—at all connected with it, whom it was necessary should be wm?jythWa Pr otest an t ntadhs o P f r o g t t e e s a t a t n d t iffi cu He cou i ld ie no n t ii h g u h t t fe l e )! th ia a t t: g t i li w i d s teasa fo p r oi h n is t lty. scruples, but he could not help acknowledging his scruples on this subject had been very great. He had been told that it was the legislature itself which had passed the act, and as the word Protestant had been introduced, it must have intended such a Protestant government as now existed to have been understood—namely, composed only as it might be of a Prot es t an t Ki ng an d P ro t estan t k ee p er of his conscience, all the other members being Catholics. He trusted he had not done wrong in taking up a strong feeling on this question—such feeling he entertained. Was it intended to be said that there was a great difference between Protestantism and the meaning of a Protestant government ? They certainly were, as far as he was ca pable of distinguishing between them, most essentially dif ferent, and this was a fact which the house ought gravely to consider, when it came to call upon members who took their seats there to take the oaths, which it was now considered necessary to administer to them. Before the admission of Catholics into Parliament, he had read a thousand speeches in which it was declared, that if the Catholics were admitted, although small in number, they would act in one body and turn the scale of parties in that house. What had been the result of that prophesy ? The Catholics had never but once acted as a body in that house, and that was on the question of removing the Civil Dis abilities of the Jews. Never had a prediction been so stul tified by events. He repeated that he thought he bad made out a complete case for the appointment of a com mittee to consider the oaths which were taken, and those, if any, which ought to be taken by members of that house. In his opinion all religious oaths whatever ought to be abolished. He should conclude by assuring the house that he had been induced to bring the subject before the house from a strong and conscientious conviction of the necessity of a final construction being put upon the oath—a con s:ruction of so marked and emphatic a character that no man could hereafter have any doubt respecting it..—( Hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by reading his motion. Lord AL rHORP had little to say upon this motion. The first point be should touch upon would be as to the propriety of the course which the hon. and learned mem ber was desirous of adopting—whether in point of fora, referring the subject to a select committee was the proper mode of proceeding. No inquiry could be entered on from which they could expect any result—an examination of facts was requisite, for they had the oaths already lie fore them, and it really appeared to him to be a question which, if entertained at all, 'should be entertained by the whole house.—(Hear, hear.) That was the only way of dealing satisfactorily with such a question. Seeing that the question had been dealt with so late as five years ago, and that the oath more particularly alluded to had been enacted in the light of a safeguard—wrongly so, in his opinion—a safeguard which by many was still considered as essential, he did not see there would be any wisdom in interfering with it. Even with his own feelings and opinions, he must still say he should be under very great difficulty indeed in taking any step upon the subject. Besides, as the oath at present stood, experience proved that it did not act as a bar or interference to the full enjoyment of those privileges which the Relief Bill was intended to bestow, nor did he believe there was any scruple of conscience in taking i% With these views—seeing they were so little removed from the time when the oath was framed—seeing that it did not deprive any one of a right, and that there was no scruple of conscience to taking it, he could not agree to it, and he really thought the hon. and learned gentleman would do better—if he stirred in the matter at all—to bring in a bill at once upon the subject. However he (Lord Althurp) might be individually inclined, he was sure that it was not a prudent course to press the matter on the house at the present time. There was no great political grievance in volved ; and knowing what were the feelings of a great body of individuals out of doors, he could not give his sanc tion to the motion before the house.—(ll. ar.) 11Ir. LANGDALE fully agreed with the hon. and learned member for Dublin that a clear and oistinct inter pretation should be put upon every Act of Parliament iu which there was an oath. sir ROBERT PEEL fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that even were it advisable to interfere at all in this matter, it was not to a select committee that it should be referred. The House of Commons was the proper place in which to decide the question, and he, for one, would not consent to devolve on a committee any such duties as those proposed. It was of the first importance that they should not confound the various provinces which had the certain effect of making each one less capable in the performance of its functions. —(clear, hear.) .The hon. and learned member for Dublin had stated, that if the committee put a certain con struction on the oath to which reference had been so often made, he fur one would instantly vacate his seat. NV by the moment the hon. and learned gentleman uttered those words, he gave a conclusive argument against the course which be himself proposes. They were to devolve on a committee the power to make a member resign his seat. Now this he really never could cons,nt .. to. He (Sir Robert) felt bound also to express his great regret, that this question had been agitated at all. He did think, not having forgotten what took place in a farmer year, that if the then House of Commons had anticipated that in the short space of five years after the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, by which every disability was removed, the Roman Catholics would have agitated the question of the oath which was specifically framed and agreed to as a security, many influtorial members would have taken a very ddferent course to what they did. He thought nothing could be so unwise, after the people had consented to the wishes of the Catholic body, and a ma jority of the Lords had decided on concession—when both Lords and people gave in full what had been anxiously sought after, and taken these oaths, as it was understood they should be taken, as valid securities against any dan ger, real or supposed. He did think that a more unwise motion than the present could not have been made, or one more calculated to stem the course of liberal concession hereafter.—(Hear, hear.) A compact had been entered into, which, though not upheld by legal technicalities, was to all intents and purposes morally binding upon all parties. He could declare most positively, and indeed he believed it was generally admitted, that no one was more anxious than he (Sir R. Peel) so to frame the oath, diet it should not hurt the feelings of any man ; and though he found great difficulties indeed to contend with, he did succeed in excluding all those parts of the former oath which could be looked on even in the slightest degree as offensive. Why the hon. and learned member had been compelled by an act of parliament passed in 1793 to take the original oath before he could be called to the bar, and by so taking it had conditioned to release himself from the effects of the penal laws. But the hon. and learned gentleman was disgusted at having to take this oath, although, after the most mature deliberation, number less Roman Catholic divines and lawyers had declared there was nothing in it repugnant to the faith which they pro fessed. But seeing that the oath was calculatea to excite dis gust, he (sir R. Peel) putit to the house whether it would not have been more just and proper, as the bill was for such a length of time before both houses of parliament, to have started these objections before it had passed, and not five years after the compact had been made.—(litar.) The bon. and learned gentleman should remember what he himself said immediately after hie ret u r n for Clare, in addressing that house in support of his claim to his seat without taking the oath of supre mac y . His own , words upon that memorable occasion we re these :— c I think 1 cannot be accused of affectation when I state that I am very ignorant of the forms of• this house, and, therefore, I require the kind indulgence of the house if I happen to t ought violate them. I claim my right to sit and vote in the house—as the representative of the county of Clare— without taking the oath of supremacy. I am ready t o e t c 'e the take the oath of allegiance provided by the recent st a t u t e Catholic subjects.' I am desirous to h ave t h at oath ad ministered." Now he (Sir R o b er t P ee l) considered, a :f e t h n e t i r t e l e h d a b A e n e nAacnt fo h t e re i y ob r jion to l f o f icis i‘la ojh ntty,' s i Rm to have been stated on that occasion. Dr. LUSHINGTON objected to any oaths at all, he held that the peopl e o f England were competent to select as representatives those whose previous character gave a far better guarantee for the integrity of their con duct. The present system of oaths was highly reprehen sible, and tended great l y to d esecrate the public mind. Sir ROBERT INGLIS was much surprised at the ob servations of the hon. and learned member. It was not by a contemptuous disregard of all who were eminent in the profession in which the lion, gentleman ranked so high, that he would maintain his aye' meats in that house. For his (Sir R. Inglis's) part, he would prefer quiet error to unruly truth.—(Hear.) The hon. and learned member bad mooted three positions; but for his (Sir R. Inglis's) part, he had no hesitation in saying that he lamented that Roman Catholics were not deprived of voting, unless re strained by oath. He would put to the house—_(Hear) — he would stand or fall upon the ground which he then occu pied, whether Roman Catholics, after taking the oath which he would proceed to read, could interfere in aught relating to the temporalities of the established church of this coon try. The hon. gentleman went on to read as follows : —" And I, A. 8., do declare that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince or prelate, person, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. 1 do swear that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of the property within this realm a s established by the laws. And Ido hereby disclaim, disavow , and sob lemnly adjure, any intention to subvert the present chorea establishment as settled by the law within this realro. A n I do solemnly swear that I will never exercise a n y P rivilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant gose rnre p ent f in this kingdoin. And Ido solemnly, in the pre see , c ;l o .. sense of this oath, without any evasion, e God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do Make lb . ! r e r claration, and every part thereof, in the plain and nrd ' na o r mental reservation whatsoever."—(Hear, bear.) ' titer . ? id . reading of that solemn oath, what could further be,eauti. Yet the hon. and learned gentleman had spoken °I a quated engagements—of absurd and unnecessary did' (Hear, hear.) Disagreeing as he (Sir R. Inglis) Mt (thele justness or propriety of the bill which had given !nut ~t right hon. and learned member for Dublin) a seat in that house; yet so long as they stood in the present position! so long as the bon. and learned member himself admitted_ pro Canto—such a protection to the Protestant estsblihsh ment of the country—so long as the house claimed t 11 , r oath to guard the national church —so long as the King a Majesty had pledged himself at his coronation to guard the church, his (Sir R. Inglis s) answer would hee,Ktha the present was a Protestant government --that th . King confine himself was essentially Protestant; lie would not .,. to the executive; but the King had stated that be would A wu maintain the Protestant religion, and upon that he I rely, and enter his strongest protest upon what had been...e ads anced to the contrary in the house that evening. 11 believed, without an oath there could be no stability--n° security ; and he therefore denounced the doctrine thus propounded. He opposed, and should continue to opposes this sweeping and unhallowed view of the question then before them.—(Hear.) quivoeation the Dr. LUSHINGTON never intended to convey anything but his dissent from the extraordinary multiplicity "f oaths, and the very much to be deprecated results wh ich STANLEY concurred entirely in the opinion had fl,wed from them. Mr. jest laid down by his hon. and learned friend (Dr. Lushington ). He (Mr. Stanley) agreed that in the unnecessar y multi plieation of oaths there was the greatest danger that a strict observance of those oaths would not be regarded, by , which means the strong and general impression as to the security of the obligation of an oath would be diminished. —(Hear, hear.) He felt bound to admit, however , that he certainly thought that one observation of his honourable and learned friend justified the impression that he was against the administration of all oaths. In s (Mr. Stanley's) hon. and learned friend said that the doc trines that he (Dr. Lushington) had that night advanced would not have been tolerated in an unreformed house of Commons. He (Mr. Stanley) wished tha t some of the doctrines that had been laid down by his hon. and loured friend would never be tolerated or supporte d in a reformel sures, which he considered of the House of Commons.—(Efear, he ,r.) He (Mr. Stanley) had ever given his cordial and earnest assent to his area he laud supported two measures to which, ever sinceerb had taken part in political transactions, he had eon:dames,: himself bound and pledged, not by previously d i of his the dictates t opinions, but he felt himself bound by ()Nu feelings, and by the convictions of his mind, to ge f rightsh e:. rid of all impositions and checks on the civil those who dissented from the doctrines of the Churc e 0 0 England.—(Hear, hear.) The second great measurh he .. which be considered himself pledged was one by whic tt °, a nd people of England would have the power of checkinngs...... , influencing the proceedings of the House of Conn , at" Hear, hear.) He rejoiced that two measures for tnee..oo greatest importance e; taininent of these great objects had received the e s d a id ; 1 130 , te considerslgislature; and, by supporting the b . 1 That established church of England.—(Hear, ;:,, u phold that he was bound to give up any urnY t° the church he, for one, would always be prep re um ld not des and maintain ; but, at the same time, he - - n il r i g bte prive any man or set of men of their political or co/ .. might in cons- quence of dissenting from that church. l' d by the he his (Mr. Stanley's) fortune to be left behin „eo d, popular feeling, as was said by his hon. and l ear ned._llMr„ in consequence of entertaining such opinions .Ssenrves,that Stanley) had then expressed ; but he would ° s f the R° man Catholics to sit in Parliament, he bad 1 from the first time he had supported the claims not of change d rincl' his political creed—lie had not altered his politiclii.hed religiono]e s ( H n e t n rt.h)e church His views f were Et,g 1 a t o n support d_ sH ea trl:eh established „bout:: at the same time, to remove all those restrictio ie.,clu every class of his Majesty's eubjects.--( might be deemed as wounding the feeling or Ce°' „ c e all passed by bolder statesmen—(Hear, of those dissenting from the church, and still In i - b e te of restrictions that had been imposed on the civ il 14 1 ,,,ar.) of, T ,aifo t i r tn o thh a fh e euil r ps , l eypi,,iianponilnoed.noascfna cautiously Hear, ',• - . 00 he should continue to hold, notwithstanding be le ft far behind by his hon. and learned friend (Dr. Lushington)o- (1 hear) - -- - " d 4.- b laid it down as a maxim, that he wag the wisest gatemn, tiat; ril e h(csi;ibtfesi't; who was the boldest statesman • and by the latter exprebso the country, and relied u oi t a the sound and strong °B.O. . ~,,,i s wots... : and therefore the wiser statesman, who pet bin'''. eat, et teale head of every show of political agitation and es qu iet and taking the lead in every clamour, with a view t othiog public opinion, and above all, to consider that eined. „_, had been done whilst anything remained to b: g fore t ele° (Cheers.) Such, then, was the bold, and tit., re r, b e ar.) • statesman of his hon. and learned friend.---(rteuebig feels He (Mr. Stanley) admitted a statesman but he (Mr. a course would be a bold statesman, bu t h i s tvis - Stanley) must take the liberty of doubting ed owl dom.—(Hear, bear.) Hi s h on . and lea f° ge (gr. said he would run before the popular be to On; Stanley) would ask how long he would b e ;low, hear.) trot and run before the public voice ?• - •••• 1 / 4 - 0 , enter' Until some wiser politician arose.--until sonte., snelne inso taining more extreme opinions was found--unt.d o f t he p 0 arose who was able to keep himself at the bed the e, th e 'ideal excitement of the day.—(Cheere.) Thuso_ n d would wisest statesman would continue his influene!e* .) His endeavour to lead the public with him.--(litZfotheo hon. and learned friend said, that be who wen t rot coto e ' in yielding to the popular voice pursued the ea 00d setae He (Mr. Stanley) had perfect reliance on the g the i o tel of the people of England : he had confidence i o _ , h i s OM a nd it was ligence and integrity of the country ; to be nir conviction, that as much public confidence dvt'COngi.tePtall tamed and maintained by opposingsteadily an win or yiel the political clamour of the day, as V follocwrogere.) 00 ing to public excitement and agitati ent • -- ; ( wieest stater (Mr. Stanley) therefore said that he "a t e s it had bee man who followed not the bold c ourse, a son and tbe called, but who looked to the reflecting reason and . y di , be influenced by the sound sense of the country, not to i 'eetions " 6 clamour, but prepared to meet plausible 0 9 1 prepared 1° one hand, and disaffection on the other ; an .0 ~e 0' abide by and defend those opinions and doctrine would suc h cerely entertained.—(Hear.) And not only cr on ae lsr 0 ,, por 41 a man be the wisest statesman, but also the 10 _, . % tor , . statesman, in the only sense that popularitY ', 11 , - ) 0 5 o btaining. His hon. friend opposite (Sir R. Ing i e n ' 9 ; Pi' too far on the other aide of the q-uestion. ; 0 01 r . friend and was for supporting quiet and mild ° „ e o litio . objecting to yield to popular a nd r h i g her feelings. There was no one who could entertain ni t ' he sn i regard than he did for his hon. friend, from vi h° l, o d sl i ' often differed on political questions. His ho ° ' i tirerrors ift 0 that he was often for adopting. mild and q u-e NOW , ,1. 1 , ) political matters instead of more unruly truth s ' f ollow "' s (Mr. Stanley) would allow his hon. friend to e .000 0, own doctrines, but be (Mr. Stanley) would nev r ' b or) to set aside truth because error was easier.--(llear' cisfie d when sa if It was his firm conviction that a statesman, . „op of the truth • d • •of political course, stioultbst fie an justice apo . . it out firmly, sincerely, and conscientiously. ' t ' e h ha truth of wi n t o• ! should follow out thOse principles of the tru e i r eu . flicting . the 1 wes convinced, without regard to Lon 5 ,00 _. 1 stances, which might for a time debar his theprogr pierre., course he was pursuing, and without regard t° ... (ss tit ; presentations to which he might be expose ke siio o , 3 l , With respect to the importance of upholding ",• it i o os !P .... , of an oath, no one could entertain stronger I t ' ll w itts° o 7 l 'himself. He did not allude to taking an ° w ood' 5 0 any regard to the words or to the obligation ' r d w ith° d so da fle bad when the terms of the oath became mer e nri . n .the sense, but to a sacred and solemn obliga.t..!--tgbicb --00 had some experience as to the manner 1 " 0 w an ° to t • were occasionally administered. Indeed ; e l. 0 w ith o f have been present at a contested e l s ic' eiola tinn t ice . having seen many instances of the g ro; oold in e i n insei t , oaths.—(Hear, hear.) On that point be d to , b of' °c ollo _ ilite a one __ to the house a circumstance that s 9 aPP! Jog tw' some years ago. Some years ago be n' ..o regi ster i 5 ,4 the commissioners to see that the oath u dinisterear ii,e man Catholic freeholders was prope rl y a time let° A tha t a clY that perjury was not committed. "' t wer e all re - ore men came up to be registered. They i tna , theY. t he swear that they had all the same home' _ hou se, 1 7, the the same profession, resided in the sou' t_ f votinti „ l' ii t of same street, and claimed the same rigut °- need P" i s e i sarse ground.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Stanley) . d oc epr mo that lie saw such a proceeding with horror s in n ed On g o and it had, more than anything else, ce fi r . , stu re 0 r e teniloeguahlintylddi,w'pi the opinion that it was the duty of the Ler' si fitb.,a rid of all unnecessary oatbs.--(llear, bea r ) t eat P I O speet to the oaths which tit had ( been propn• e . ba t Ito to abolish, lie would in the first place o bserve '