The Sun. — London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

nd four places; of sheet paddle ,nd two crutch arboard recastle nocked ION• !lowing mplete on will attack ains bi Austria and de• en and ye Not ided on nlikelY) fitting 6n who bmit to ow hot eyentw rlin hits alkan9 ch, an IA as to e Otto f Omer s in the P resent e theca tnd had he Rus ianople, ;oils in rurkey. reaty 10 d to the that she d Pro ust her. ides, of t to call by the Francis- ies have north of hat the isser, in ground )i rati cal 1 Greece and the hellion ; ers who e public juin the by the low Go- sniteur, is have now on o rapid ) orders troops. ern side its. Lys that •ders to Greece, Vestera 1, says • 3 depar aid that 'rorn the uncon• who has known ipvita ons be cy and pleasure ferences )m Con )o ndent acted at a recon- Rome. sonageS told, a )ur cor d direct ;young has no Efieulties ,ho two other. 'rests of f view, is of the h airs, s," and Khan" a band on the Bf. 90c. ne, has Y a Pri' pinion e chid follow• excep or mu- decree is to be .31. of which n into tracts satis -1 sixth Tdam, nniers )00f1., ) bon -9,932 1., or r. —A t was Mr. f the is ex town, 411 A BEE T N EIVS-(T LTIS RAI.) CO RN EXC II N NOE. Sines Mon lay there has been a decided increase in the arrivals of English wheat up to our market, coastwise and by land carriage To-lot's market was moderate. The attendance of buyers being limited, the demand for all kinds of wheat of home produce ruled heavy, •and in some instances pi ices were rather lower than on Monday. We were well supplie with foreign wheat. Selected Ham -12°4 sold at barely previous rat es. Low and miduliug qualities were considered is per quarter lower, with a dull inq u i ry. The show of barley was but moderate, yet the demand Was heavy, at barely stationary prices. In malt very little was doin4, on former terms. With oats we were well supplied. Sales progressed slowly, and the quotations were rather easier. Beans, peas, and flour were unaltered. ARRIVALS TIIIt6 WEER. Barley. )121 t. 120, 2,790 English . • Irish . . . Foreign . . Wheat. 1,480 40,850 1 2,550 7.l(lsks 11,E7Obrl SMITHFIELD. Oatm. I Flour, 64) 1,60 15,170 19,910 ------ The supply of beasts here to-day bring very mrllerate, and the attendance of buyers on the increase, the demand for that description of stock ruled brisk, at a further ad vance in the q uotations of 2d par 81bs. The top figur e was 5 i per Sib s . We were but moderately supplied with sheep and lamb s . Prime Down breeds moved off steadily, at full prices. Otherwise the demand was in a sluggish state, but we have no actual decline to notice in the currencies. Calves an d pigs changed hands on former terms. filch cows were firm, at from 13/. to 201. each, including t heir small calf. Per Ens to sink the offals. s. d. s. d.l a. d. a. d. Inferior Beasts.... 3 Bto 3 10( Prime South,lown 410 5 0 Second quality.... 4 G 4 2; Largo erse. calves 4 0 4 8 Prime large oxen 4 4 4 O'riine small d 0... 410 5 6 Inferior Scots, &c. 4 8 5 OiLarge hogs 3 8 4 4 taferior Sheep ...3 6 3 10'Sma1l porkers 4 6 410 Second quality ...4 0 4 41Suekling calves ..23 0 29 0 rrime erse.-wiled.4 6 4 B,Quarter old pigs 22 0 28 0 Lambs ss 4d to 6s Bd. TOTAL SUPPLY. FOREIGN SUPPLY. Bee.its 950 Beasts • ....... .. •••• .. • NEWGATE AND LEA.DENHALL. Generally speaking, the trade ruled steady to-day, as follows : Per Sibs by the carcase. s. d. s. d. gee, inferior 3 4 3 6 middling 3 8 310 ~"s o ., prime largo 4 0 4 2 do. small 4 2 4 4 Pork, large 3 6 1 4 Lamb __ -------- s. d. s. d. Mutton, Inferior 3 8 3 10 Do., middling 4 0 4 4 Do., prime 4 6 4 8 Veal 3 10 5 2 Pork, small... 4 6 410 5s Od to 6s 6J. BOROUGH HOP. The plantation accounts not being very favourable, there is rather more business doing in our market, and the quotations have an upward tendency. Some parties call the duty 130,0001. This week's imports are 2d bales from Antwerp, and 51 from New York. The quotations are as follow anti East Kent pockets, 51. 15s to 81 : 10s ; Weald of Kent ditto, 5/. 5s to 7/. Os ; Sussex ditto, 51.5 s to 61. 12s per cwt. COLONIAL. SUGAR.—There has been more activity in the market generally, but the tone has been decidedly flatter. British lantaEori has been at a slight decline. Barbadoes at auction realised 39s to 40s for fine yellow, and 33s Gd to 38 8 Gd for low to good. St. Lucia went at 32s 6d to 34s for low to fine brown, and at 33 , , to 37s for refining. St. Kitt's brought 34s 6.i to 3 is, and crystalised Demerara 37s to 40s 61 for mid to fine yellow. East India.—Bengal Privat e ly sold at full rates, and at auction 32e to 33s 6,1 Were obtained for low and mid. Penang is fully Is. lower, low to fine brown selling at 30s to 328 6d, and low to fine yel low at 32s Cl: to 36s 6d per cwt. Mauritius went at rather lower prices, viz., fine and good yellow 35s Gd to 3Ss, low to mil 34s to 355, ord to fine brown 30s to 33s 6,1, very good 28s 6d to 29s lid, low to fine refining 328 to 36s 6d, and grainy at 36s to 425. Foreign—Porto Rico has been depressed about 61 per cwt, low to mid heavy grey and .Yellow selling at 35s to 378 6,1. good mid to good at 38s to 398 6(1, low to fine - yellow at 35s to 41s ; and fine at 40s to 41s per cwt. Manilla was taken in above the value, good brow n clayed at 35s to 35s 6d, and ord to good Muscovado at 31s t o 328. Washed realised 298 61 to 30s per cwt. COFFEE.—Plantation Ceylon has been in brisk request, at a slight decline ; fine brought 67s 6 , 1, mid to good mid t)88 to 59s 6d, low mid. 566 to 57s GI, low mid and mid 53s to ~_ 595, good 60s to 60s Gd, small 52s to 545, triage 43s to `Ai.s, and peaberry 53s 6d to 61R 6,1. Native also was weaker ; good ord old import publicly sold at 43s to 4:38 6d Per cwt. Privately good ord went at 435, and fine ord at 4 , 4 5 H. At a subsequent sale good ord was taken in at *,,E I 6d to 448, but good sold at 639. Madras ord brought re to 46s 6d, Jamaica mid small 545, and Mocha mid °B4 6.1. COCOA.—Trinidad found buyers at 36s to 36s Gd for mid greyish red. SPlCEC.—Pimento has been dull, mid coarse being taken in at 54d. Nutmegs declined 2d to 4d, but cloves have been s t ea d y . M ace realised former values , but pepper has been rather lower. Good ord small to mid dark old Jamaica ginger sold at 44s to 765, and Malabar ord rough 41 0111(1y at 20s to 20s Gd. RlCE.—This article has been dull at 31 decline, ord to good Moonghy selling at Os 6.1 to 10s. White was taken in at 12s 6d for good mid, and Bombay said small dusty white at 12s. COTTON.—The market has been inactive. SALTPETRE.—Very little has been done. Bengal 8i per cent. refraction was taken at 40s, for mid. Bombay at 30s, for 14 to 18i per cent. refraction. 1 - TEMP.—The inquiry is limited, at 671 per ton, and jute has declined. TEA.—Prices are nominal, owing to the restricted business doing. TALLow.—The market is quiet, at 61s Gd per cwt. for P.Y.C. on the spot. GREEN FRUIT.—The improvement in the market is sustained, the backward stateof vegetation being in favour of foreign fruit. Some parcels of Lisbon oranges, per steamer, sold by Keeling and Hunt at public sale were taken freely by the trade. A novelty in Brazil oranges has been received and approved of. Lemons and nuts of al l 'duds in better demand, and the war in the East is likely to interfere with further shipments of the latter article. LLOYD'S SIIIPPING-(THIS DAY.) LONDON, May '26.—Wind this day at Noon, S. ; light breeze, and cloudy. OFF HASTINGS, May 25.—Pio None, from Batavia. Cowpa, May 25.—Wind, S.W. Arrived Oscar from Batavia ; Peter Anderson, Callao; Joven Marian, Trinidad de Cuba ; Auguste, Cienfuegos. PonrsuouTd, May 25.—Wind, S.S.W. to S.W. Sailed Snake, for Mo ,adore. SALCOMBS, May 25.—Wind, W.S W. Sailed —Rising Sun, for Cadiz. FALMOUTH, May 25.—Wind, W. Arrived—Friends , from Paraiba ; Lieut. Petterson, Buenos Ayres ; Fadreas rn alinde, Monte Video, for Liverpool; Eri e, Matanzas; -u b aYrsaad (Egyptian steamer), London, for Alexandria ; - crigga, Pernambuco ; Boadicea, Eupatoria ; Annette Ca- Marini, Porto Rico ; Demetrius, Rio Janeiro ; Alarm , Pernambuco; Alert, Smyrna. Off Port—Gladiator, from Iroulmain ; Johannes, Samsrang, and Baited for Ham burgh ; Zealous, Callao ; Germania, Porto Rico, and sailed for Alto ra . PLYMOUTH, May 24.—Wind, W.S.W. Arrived—Water7 Witch, from Corunna ; Ewartung, Wismar. OFF DARTMOUTH, May M.—Surrey , from Port Philip. QUEENSTOWN, May A.—Wind, variable. Arrived 4alador, from Mauritius ; Serigapatam, Callao ; Tomatin, Napariwa, do. ; Graf von Brandenburg, Baltimore; `*race Lon staff; Manilla, and left for Greenock; Asia, Callao ; Bud, do., and left for London. CORE, May 24. - Wind, N. Arrived — Mayflower, from Tarsons ; Challenger, Samson, and Mercurio, from Con stantinople. Wt TERFORD, May 24.—Wind, W.N.W. Arrived — Margaret, from Trinidad. SCILLY, May 23.—Arrived—Gazelle, from Mauritius. MEMEL, May 19.—Her M a j es ty' s steamers Amphion and Conflict arrived here yesterday with the following Russian merchant ships, which they had captured in Libau har bour, and brought them into this port, namely :—Alex ander, of Libau ; Louiso Amalia, Polka, Johann, Carl, and Louise, all of Riga ; Livonia and Active, of Pernau ; and Nicolay, of Windan. May 22.—Weather. fine ; wind, easterl is 14 ft. 6 in. water on the b ar . H M. steamer Confliet lying in the roadstead. TEIISTED, May 19.—The Unionen, of and bound to Struer, from Hartlepool, was stranded at tae entrance of the Agger Canal last evening ; crow saved. (BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.) LIVERPOOL, Friday, 10.30 a.m. E.S.E. ; light wind, and dull. Arrived—John Patchett, from Ceylon ; Emilie, Mazat 'au ' • Alciope, Buono Ayres; Jessie Munn, ,ew Orleans; and Auguste Mathilde, Marseilles. (131 SUBMARINE AND EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH.) GRAVESEND, Friday, 10.45 a.m Wind, W.S.W. • tide, two hours flool ; fine. Arrived, 25th—Ocean Gem, from Cape of Good Hope ; Anna Maria, Gothenburg ; Kugra, Callao ; Carolinda, Cherbourg ; Anne Fisher, Ceylon ; Margery, Marstraud ; Gipsy Queen, St. IJbes : Dart, Jersey ; Collingwood, Ran noon ; Vsabel 11., Santander ; L ivel y , Guernse y ; Charles, Caen ; Johanne, Swinemunde ; Mon te r o, O p orto ; Leveret, Stettin Wards, Dantzic ; John Bull (s) , Hambur g h ; Alert, Guernsey; Constance, Melbourne ; Derwentwater, hobart Town ; Hero, Launceston ; Abigal, Guernsey ; Cornelius, Trinidad; Earl of Chester, Callao. Arrived, 26th—Soho (s), from Havre ; Irene, Adelaide ; City of Boulogne (s), Boulogne ; City of London (s), Dun kirk. Sailed—Alar (s), Dunkirk ; Christiana, Drontheim ; City of Rotterdam (s), Harlingen. DEAL, Milty, 9.35 a.m. Wind, ; moderate and cloudy. P: , ssal —Era (not Anna Dixon), from Porto Rico for -London, reported last night ; Clara, Colombo ; Devon shire M , adras ; Electric, C.tdiz ; Enterprise, Hongkong ; Ann Holzberz, Koh-i-noor, Zetus, and Aber '°Yies Cali.utta ; Apolline, Jamaica; Christine, Constan thlot)le; Gladiator, Moulmein; Despatch, Ceylon; Bro thers, Algoa Bay—all for London; Passoreang, Batavia for Texci. Anchored —South Carolina, from London for Havre ; Dublin, London for Nassau ; Maitland, London for Ho bart Town. sailed Isaiah Crovell, for Frederickshal. IO lAN BANIC.—At a meeting of this bank, held yes terday, the dividend declared was at the rate of 5 per cent., and the report and accounts were a:lopted. The a 'airman (Mr. 0. Farrel.) explained the poi , ition of busi- I "; and the only discussion was in relation to the de sirableness of extending operations to Malta, Naples, and other localities. It was stated, however, that this course would be impracticable under the existing charter and that it was not considered p li is to attempt the ex tensive arrangements required to effect it. _ THE MILITIA GARRISON AT THE TOWER.—It appears, from the recollections of old veterans now surviving the lace war; that no militia regiment has been honoured with the Tower garrison since the war in the reign of George 111., when the corps honoured with the guard of the Royal • regalia and ()wet' valuables was that of the 440 .141 Windsor Militia, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) THE OATHS BILL. On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Sir F. THESIGE said that when the noble lord, now more than three montlis ago, introduced this measure to the attention of the house, he (Sir F. Thesiger) took the liberty of observing upon the important principle which it involved, and ho promised that an opportunity should be afforded in this stage for a full discussion. That period bad been long delayed, but not by his fault, for the house would remember that he, over and over again, pressed the noble lord to fix a day for proceeding with it so much so as to provoke the mirth of the house, which was always so easily disposed to be amused amidst its graver occupa tion. The noble lord on one occasion, with a gravity which was remarkable, appealed to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) know le , ge of his great anxiety to take a debate on this ques tion, and the noble lord appeared to rather expect him to give an assenting reply. If ho might be allowed to ex press his own thoughts, they would not be in favour of that which the noble lord chose to take for granted ; for he could not get rid of an idea, which might be erroneous, that the noble lord had no disposition to facilitate the bill to its present stage, but rather manifested a reluct :nee to do so, which was to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind indi cative of misgivings of the prudence of the measure. If the noble lord was influenced by the state of public feeling, he was not astonished at the mistrust which he manifested, for so far as petitions to that house could be considered as au index of the public mind, the result was remarkable. They bad no doubt that day bad, with the usual ceremony, a petition from the city of Lou lon in favour of the bill. That was to be anticipated. But up to that day the returns of the peti tions presented were interesting and important. The peti tions in favour of the bill up to yesterday were three, with 166 signatures; for an alteration in parliamentary oaths, but not in favour of this bill, one petition with 69 signatures ; whereas the petitions against the bill a ere 481, with 60,171 signatures. (Hear, hear.) The more he reflected on the course which the noble lord had adopted on the present occasion, the more he was astonished at his depar ture from all those professions he had recently made in favour of the Protestant cause and the noble lord's violation of those measures which he had so strenuously maintained, and it was only to him a proof of the determination of the noble lord to allow Teething to stand in the way of the accomplishment of a favourite object. Before he proceeded to consider the reasons used by the noble lord for this ex traordinary measure he must anticipate an argument which might be urged in favour of the second reading, and against which he was anxious to warn hon. members who were opposed to the principle of the bill. One of the grounds on which the noble lord rested his case for an alteration of parliamentary oaths was, that a portion of them was obsolete, there being no person in existence to whom they could apply. The noble lord adverted to the oath of abjuration, and pointed out that we were called on to abjure the right and title of the descendants of the Pretender to the crown of these realms, and that no one was now in existence to whom that oath extended There might be some members who regarded with in difference an alteration in the oath of abjuration, and in this particular would be induced to agree with the noble lord, anti it might be insisted on that, as they who opposed the bill yet admitted that some alteration in the oaths was necessary, that was a reason for going into com mittee on the bill, and then that those who were opposed to it on other grounds would have an opportunity of alter ing and modifying it in other respects. He hoped there was no hon. member opposed to this bill who would be so incautious as to be caught by that specious argument. They were at this stage of the measure confessedly d scus sing the principle of the bill. If they consented to go into committee, they admitted that they were prepared to legislate on the principle of there being only one oath, which necessarily involved the abandonment, or at least a softening, if he might use the expression, of the sure ennacy, and the relinquishment of those securities of the Protestant religion which were established at the time of the passing of the Roman Catholic Id lief Bill. And do not let any hon. member flatter himself that if he abandoned this high ground, and followed the enemy into a field which they had chosen, that he would ever be able to recover his posi tion, or that he would have any other course to pursue than to surrender all his principles at discretion. (Hear, hear.) The measure which had been proposed by the noble lord on this occasion manifested his determination to allow nothing to stand in the way between him and any favourite object of his wishes ; and it would be useful for them to considee what it was that led the noble lord originally to the consideration of the oaths that were taken by members of Parliament. It was in the recollection of the house that the noble lord some years ago was returned as the repre sentative of the city of Loudon with Baron Rothschild, a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion. On that occasion the noble lord made one of those inconsiderate pledges with which he was oceasionally apt to embarrass himself. He promised that he would use his earnest and most strenuous endeavours to remove the impediments which existed by law to a Jew being a member of the Legislature. Lord J. RUSSELL —The year before. Sir F. THESIGER continued. The noble lord had cer tainly been as good as his word. Session after session had that house been called upon to discuss this question. With the exception of the session 0f1852, not a session had passed withoet the question having been agitated by the noble lord in some shape or other. In February of that year the noble lord introduced one of his finality reform bills, in ehich he introduced one common form of oath to be taken by all the members of the house, and which resembled in many particulars the oath now under the consideration of the house. In 1853 the noble lord returned to his original course, and introduced what was familiarly called a Jew bill. The measure was carried by decreasing majorities in that hcuse, and defeated by increasing majorities iu the House of Lords ; and the noble lord, not discostraged, but rather inflamed by the successful opposition, had now come forward with this particular measure. The noble lord had shown the resolution which he maintained upon this subject by most extraordinary threats which he hid held out. At the time he introduced this measure he in timated pretty plainly that if the law were not altered according to his wishes, it might be for the house to con sider whether it would not adopt the course which was taken upon a previous occasion, and seat Baron Roths child by means of a resolution. Now, the noble gird must wholly have forgotten, or supposed the house had no recollection of all that had passed previously upon this subject. In 1850, when the present Vice Chancellor Wood made a motion on behalf of Baron Rothschild, • that the seat was full, although he had omitted the words " on the true faith of a Christian," the present Master of the Rolls, then the Attorney-General of the noble lord said he was clearly of opinion that the words were of the substance of the oath, and that no resolution of the house could enable them to dispense with an act of par liament; and that motion was negatived by a majority of 105. In 1851, the noble lord, adverting to the argument of his Attorney-General, said it was evidently the intention of parliament that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should not be emitted; and in the year 1851, in the month of July Mr. Alderman Salomons having taken, or attempted to take, his seat without having taken the oath with those words, the noble lord himself moved " that David Salomons. Esq., 'is not entitled to sit in this house during a debate until he shall take the oath of abju ration in the form prescribed by law." And the Attorney- General upon that occasion said no one who looked at the history of the period could doubt that the legislature in tended that those words should be a substantial part of the oath. What had induced the noble lord to depart from the opinions and declarations he on previous occasions expressed on this subject? Had anything occurred to shake the noble lord's views on the subject? Why, since that perio 1, there had been two solemn decisions of the s °arts of justice; orb of the Court of Exchequer, in which three beret's to one were of opinion that these words were an essential and substantial part of the oath, and no part of the ceremony of administering the oath ; and that judgment was conrirniecl by the unanimous decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, delivered by Lord Camp bell. And set the noble lord was determined to show that nothing should interfere with the object he had at heart. [The hon. and learned gentleman quoted a declara tion cf Lord Ly netturses, that the supremacy of the crown in ecclesiastical matters was part of the common law of the land.] Iu the reign of Elizabeth, however, when the seal was set to our happy Reformation, it was considered ad visable that there should be a strong legislative declara tion of the authority of the Crown, for the purpose of binding up the Protest ut religious establishment by law into one compact, independent body, with the sovereign at its head, and therefore it was that there being for the first time in the fii st year of the reign of Elizabeth this legal recognition of the supremacy, writers hail invariably treated that statute as being one of the main links of the temporal institution of theAngican Church, and as the key-stone of the arch of the Protestant reformed religion established by law. That being the charter of their liberties, and the oath of supremacy which the Protestant members now took of being framed on the model of that which was contained in that Act of Parliament, he thought they ought to look with great jealousy and suspicion on any attempt to tamper with that oath. They had, in feet, consecrated it by introducing the principle which it contained into the oath which was taken by the sovereign at her coronation. What did the noble lord prow's° by this now fangled form of oath? He proposed that the oath of the sovereign should be the only one that recognised the Protestant constitution in its integrity. But had the noble lord assigned no reason for this measure? Yes, he had favoured them with certain of his views at the time he in troduced it, and pointed out particular parts of the oath which lie considered to be highly objectionable. In the first place, the noble lord said it was desirable to get rid of this portion of the oath —" I do re nounce, reject, and abjure the opinions that princes excom municated by the Pope of Rome may be lawfully deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any other person what ever." The noble lord said, " This was the doctrine of a party at the time of the Reformation and immediately fol lowing it, but he did not believe that there were any per sons who held such a tenet at the present day, and ho held that it was wrong to call on persons to swear that they ab jured such a doctrine, when it was, in fact, an unwarrant able assumption that there were any person liable to such a suspicion." And the noble lord stated that those words were introduced into the supremacy oath in consequence of a passage in the work of a Jesuit, approving of the murder of Henry 111. of France. [Lord J. Russell here made an observation across the table, which was inaudible in the gallery.] co od n T u tc h ae e i cni r nt fish n a c sl t e li qu o us f ee ni s en t e i pre of e r t n sitl a ei cy ogn u. was o h i w n edo l e s ar s tph B l: wh ich hs not an oath of supremacy at all—it was in 1698 that the oath of supremacy was framed as it at present stood. The noble lord said it Was an insult to the Roman Catho lics to require them to take an oath of this kind. Why, the very same objection was taken in 1.829, when the oath, as it was now taken by Roman Catholics, was carefully framed as one of the securities taken on the ad mission of Roman Catholic members. Twenty-five years had elapsed, and there had been no complaint on the part of Roman Catholic members of insult. Of course one must speak with great forbearance on a subject of this kind, and he did not believe that any high-minded Roman catholic of the present day entertained any such principle as that which this oath was framed to guard against, but he was sum e he might appeal to every high-minded catho lic whether this was not, formerly, at least, a tenet of the Roman Catholic Church. (Hear.) Had that opinion ever been disavowed? and if not, let that part of the oath be retained as it wag when they passed the Relief Bill. (Hear.) But the noble lor d suggested that the oath of su premacy was useless, because it was contained in the oath of allegiance ; and he cited the authority of Lord Eldon. Now Lord Ellen certainly had held that doctrine, but since 1829 he was afraid that the argument could not pre vail. If the oath of allegiance referred to the spiritual supremacy of the crown, the Roman Catholics had been deceived ; but that such was not the case ho thought was proved by the fact, that a particular form of oath was pro vided for thee), is which they were only required to ro. THE SUN, J2ONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1854. nounce the temporal supremacy of the Pope. In this de claration at the time of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill the Roman Catholic laity expressly stated that they considered themselves hound by their religious principles, and entitled by their rights as Englishmen, to maintain the supremacy of the Holy Father in spiritual matters. It was, there fore, impossible to urges that the oath of allegiance sup plied the place of the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.) But the noble lord's oath was not to be taken by members or the House of Commons alone, but it was to be substi tuted in every case where the oath of supremacy was now required ; and he would ask the noble lord , who in his famous letter had denounced those "unworthy members" of their own church who were disposed to question the supremacy of the crown, what would be the effect of allowing those persons to take the proposed form ? The 37th article contained an acknowledgment of the royal supremacy, but they had had experience that that article might be subscribed in a " nen-natural sense"—(cheers)-- with the aid of this qualifying oath as an inter preter, there could be no doubt whatever that the con struction of the article by those persons would be completely established. (Hear, hear.) The object of the noble lord's proposition, then, was to benefit the Roman Catholics, and the Romanising pseudo-Protestants. (Hear, hear.) He ventured now to appeal to the Dissent ing members. If it were a question between the church and them, hu knew he should meet with no sympathy from them ; but he ventured to submit to their most serious consideration whether a movement which was evidently intended to benefit the Roman Catholic members and those members of the English Church who were divided from them by a very thin wall of partition, was one that they would be disposed to encourage? He would ask them to consider that the Established Church was one of the firmest barriers even to thesuselve: against the encroachtnehts of popery—(derisive cheers ) — and ho would caution them that if they broke it down for the purpose of establishing Roman Catholic ascendancy, they would find that the little finger of Rome was thicker than the loins of Eng land. (Hear, hear.) The oath was ono of the securities devised at the passing of the Relief Act, and it had been framed in terms which had been considered by the heads of the Roman Catholic body. In the pastoral which they issued at the passing of the Relief Act, they stated that a legislature which had so raised them from their prostrate condition was entitled to their reverence and love. (Hear.) Since then it was no doubt true that attempts had been made to disturb the settlement which had then been come to, but the noble lord had always stood manfully in the breach to resist them. In 147 the noble lord stated that he did not think it would be wise to alter a settlement which had been arrived at after so many conflicts and so much consideration. (Cheers.) Ho also declared that no necessity had been shown for such an alteration. Had any more necessity been shown since? (Cheers.) It was only the circumstances in which the noble lord had pl iced himself that had reduced him to this unfortunate eosition. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had expressed himself in similar terms on several sub sequent occasions ; but he now objected to that part of the oath which bound Roman Catholics to preserve the existing settlement of property, on the ground that that was secured by law. (Hear.) But no one knew better than the noble lord the imprescriptible character of the claims of the Romish See ; for in 1851 he quoted with approbation the saying of Du Carron, that though Rome might relax many of her claims, she never lost sight of them ; for ,she knew neither infancy nor widowhood ; she learned many things but forgot nothing. The noble lord, however, seemed to have reversed that antithesis. He seemed to have forgotten some things and to have learned nothing. (Laughter.) Either this parb of the oath was not objected to—and in that case it was idle to alter it—or if it was objected to, it must be because the Roman Ca tholic members felt themselves in some degree hampered by it ; and in that case ho besought the house not to give up this small remaining fragment of security. (Hear.) He thought he had now established his case, namely, that the new oath was calculated only for the benefit of the Roman Catholics and of the Romanisers. The noble lord wished to toss over the supremacy to the Roman Catho lics, by requiring from them only a mutilated recognition of it. When he had prostrated all the securities which had been so carefully devised at the time of the Relief Act, and which had been accepted by the heads of that Church as such ; when he had levelled these barriers, he would then, by the aid of those who fought under the banners of civil and religious liberty, get rid of the Christian form of the oath, and so procure the admission of the Jews into the Legislature—the ultimate and carefully guarded object of the noble lord. (Cheers.) The noble lord bad contrived most ingeniously to carry out the idea of Caligula, for ho had given to the most clearly cherished principles of the constitution one neck, in order that he might destroy them all at a single blow. (Hear.) What had happened since the nobl lord stood forward as the champion of the Protes tant cause, to snake him adopt such a widely different course? Had the conduct of the Roman Catholics been such as to call for further concessions ? Had those " un worthy members" of the English Church, whom the noble lord charged with having done so much to weaken the doctrines and principles of the Reformation, al tered their views ? Why, then, did he come for ward to aid those parties against whom he had been so constitutionally opposed upon every former occasion? • (Cheers.) However formidable the noble lord might be in the ranks of their opponents, he trusted that they (the Conservative members) would not be dismayed. For his own part, he committed himself fearlessly to the conflict. He had ventured to take the lead on this occa sion, but he knew that there were those behind him with stout courage send good hearts, who, if he should fail, would be ready manfully to wage battle with the noble lord upon this important question. He could not believe that their Protestant fellow members would be wanting to them on such an occasion ; and he was satisfied that they would be able to show a suelicient force to defend the bul warks of their Protestant Constitution from the assault of the noble lord upon the supremacy of the sovereign, the established religion of the country, and their common Christianity. (Loud cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not help thinking that his hon. and learned friend had intro. duced into the discussion a great deal of matter connected with religious controversy that might advantageously have been spared—(hear, hear)—and which tended much more, he should say from experience, to darken and taint the at mosphere of the house, and to blind and bewilder the judgment of its members, than to assist in the elucidation of any difficulty connected with the law or constitution. (Cheers.) The subject had been treated by his hon. and learned friend with reference to three classes—first, the Jews ; secondly, those whom ho designated the Romanising Protestants ; and thirdly, a class whom he appeared to hold in worse odour even than them, the Roman Catholics. As, however, the hon. and learned gentleman bore very lightly on the Jews, he would follow his example, and say very little about them. His hon. friend had, in fact, re ferred to them merely for the purpose of assailing the con sistency and the singlemindedness and integrity of purpose of his noble friend the member for the city of London. Now, it would be very easy for him, whatever his opinions might be on questions relating to what were termed the principles of religious liberty, to say that the reputation of his noble friend for his consientious attachment to those principles would be handed down to posterity through many genera tions, said could want no vindication either from his own lips or from those of his colleagues. (Cheers.) Ho (Mr. Gladstone) stated that as an impartial witness, because it had often been his lot on various occasions and in various senses, to differ from his noble friend upon questions of this kind ; but the testimony he had rendered was a testimony so eminently due to him, and so just, that ho was sure that even his hon. and learned friend, except in the heat of debate, would never himself have questioned it. (Cheers.) Nothing would Immune easy than to refute the charge which the hon. and learned gentleman had brought against the noble lord, namely, that he had changed his views upon the subject since his political connexion with the city of London. If ho (Mr. Gladstone) was not mistaken, he had himself heard his noble friend in 1810, and again in 1815, dilate upon the question of Jewish emancipation in pre cisely the same manner as he had since done. In 1817, being then challenged upon this matter, his noble friend put upon record a declaration iu that house which ought to have closed the lips of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. (Mr. Gladstone then read an extract from a speech of Lord John Russell, in which he stated that in 184 b he promised to a deputation of Jews that he would on some future occasion introduce a measure for their com plete emancipation, whereas his connexion with the city of London did not commence until the following year. -His hon. and learned friend having laid before the house a number of imaginary facts, must next proceed to give a number of reasons equally imaginary, to account for the coarse which the noble lord hart pursued. He said that the noble lord's proceedings had been the fruit of a compromise entered into in consequence of divergences of principle be tween the noble lord and his colleagues upon religious ques tions. Recalling to his recollection, however, the career of his hon. and learned friend, and the various political connexions into which he had himself entered—(e, laugh) —he (air. Gladstone) did out think that that portion of his speech was as unobjectionable and elevated in point of taste and feeling as he was bound to say the hen. gentleman's speeches almost uniformly were. But if that was the case, his speech wile still less felicitous as a piece of Parliamentary tactics. While the hon. gentleman was finding fault on the score of divergence of opinion with a Government who upon this subject were perfectly united, there was within three feet of him a sight hon. gentleman under whose leadership he had served in the late Govern ment, and who altogether differed from him on this ques tion. (Laughter.) When at the close of his speech the hon, and learned gentleman said there were behind bins divers stout and able-bodied persons who would come for ward if he himself failed, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not help thinking how odd would be the effect if the deficiency of his hon. and learned friend should bo supplied by two persons who, he should say, were certainly the stoutest and most able-bodied in debate of those who sat opposite, name ly, the right hon. gentleman the Member for Bucks a nd the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. (Loud laughter.) He believed he might advert to a yet more tender connexion, for no tie could bo closer or more affec tionate than that which united law officers of the Crown, and yet r _ea t h eu e nnef l r i oa o r i n t u . wuj a at n ht eithlipes predicament erhcniojecnda. ingentlemanlearned e his hon. friend on this Point. (R enewe d withStdlahraoueligsvehainter) So here was three stout and valiant champions, °uela'rninecsltegaecitnolefmmaani'sing defence,upanwould deal deficiency of h anw(i l ost deadly blows. (Laughter.) The h on . s g entleman hail charged his nobl e f r i en d w ith everyiunnpdo thenlearned it one ho e themost having made the Roman Catholics a present of the supre macy of the Crown. Sir F. THESIGER—Not the whole of it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII, his hon. and learned friend said that the proposed oath only required a "mutilated acknowledgment of the supremacy;" and although he never expected much liberality from the other side, be must frankly confess that he thought the hon. gentleman had conceded a great deal too much to e i a n rd th h e his house, hon his noble friend in a dmittin g that his p ro p osed oath contained any ackno wled g ment of the supremacy at all. su fi b r i st ec h t Surely, if the suprema c y meant anything, it meant an upon andecclesiastical learned friend supremacy . dilate he was astonished at th e inaccuracy of his impressions he When he respecting the oath of Supremacy. And unless the terms of that oath were fresh iu the recollection of hon. members, or unless they had the opportunity of frequently referring to the pasteboard copies in the box on the table, they might be weak enough to believe that the oath of supre macy contained something about supremacy. But those who had given their attention to the subject could not fail to be aware that, singular as it might be, the oath of supremacy contained nothing whatever on the subject of the supremacy of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. G. PRILLIMORE—The Sovereign is called the head of the Church. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You say that that is in the oath of supremecy. ? , Mr. PHILLIAIORE—No; but in the oath of allegi ance. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That from a distinguished member of the legal profession (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If that was the depth of darkness of a distinguished member of the legal profession, what more than Chnmirean gloom must cover the gene rality of the members of that house ! (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was speaking of the oath of supremacy, and the hon. and learned gentleman quoted something as from the oath of allegiance, which after all was not in it ; for that oath said nothing about the Queen being the head of the Church. And he would go further, and seer that the hon. and learned gentleman would find it extremely difficult to show that the expression "head of the Church" was applicable to her Majesty by any law of this country. Mr. PHILLIMORE—It is "governor of the Church." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they were approximating to the truth by slow degrees. But it would be better for him not to discuss the matter with the hon. and learned gentleman, but to take the facts as they stood. It was a fact that the oath of supremacy did not declare the supremacy of the crown. (Hear.) It con tained two propositions—first, an abjuration of what was called the deposing doctrine, and then a denial of the power and juris liction of the Pope within these realms. Sir F. THESIGER—Of the ecclesiastical power. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was a declaration, large as words could make it, excluding the jurisdiction of the Pope, and any power or pre-eminence he might have within these realms. But that was a denial of the power of the Pope, not an assertion of the power of the crown. That was to be sought for from other sources. How was this ? The term " oath of supremacy" had at filched to this oath from the time when it was first enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 'r hen, no doubt, it very well deserved the title, because at that time it began with these words :—" I, A. 8., do hereby testify and declare on my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only governor of this realm , as well in all ecclesias tical things and causes as in matters temporal." That was a perfectly intelligible phrase—that was an oath of supre macy. (Hear, hear.) But it had been altered, and when? The hon. and learned gentleman said it was a great bul wark of the Protestant constitution. But it was altered just at the very mo:uent when the constitution became emphatically Protestant. It was not until the revolution, in the first year of William anti Mary, that the oath of supremacy was altered ; then the declaration of supre macy, the clause of supremacy, was omitted from the oath. The title of the oath had remained ; the substa,nce had been completely altered ; and it was now most inaccurately de scribed as an oath of supremacy. It was an oath for the two purposes he had described--the abnegation of the deposition doctrine, and the denial of the jurisdiction of the Pope. Would the hon. and learned gentleman say that he was refining on this matter, and that the two things were identical? (Hear, hear, from Sir F. Thesiger.) So far from being a refinement, it was a broad, clear, palpable proposition ; it was not only a constitu tional truth, but almost a constitutional truism. Tho supremacy of the Crown, acknowledged by the Church of England, as members of the Church of England, was not acknowledged by other gentlemen who were members of that house, of whom he saw a portion near him, any more than it was acknowledged by the Roman Catholics. Those gentlemen were willing to concur with the members of the Church in an oath that abnegated and repudiated the autho rity of the Pope ; but they were no more willing than the Roman Catholics themselves to concur in an oath which asserted the supremacy of the Crown. ("Hear, hear," from the Dissenting supporters of Government, with ironi cal cheers from the Opposition.) He must say that thin was not a subject for jeer or laughter ; such a course was utterly inconsistent with the relations that ought to prevail between members of that house, for he apprehended that those who sat there for the purpose of discharging the grave responsibilities that, attached to the House of Commons, ought to sit there on terms of equality. (Cheers.) And it was not competent to the hon. gentleman, according to his own private opinion, to define and circumscribe, and far less to define and circumscribe by contemptuous signs, the liberties of other people. (Hear.) He had thought it per fectly notorious, and not requiring subtlety or argument of any kind, that the gentlemen of this country who belonged to the various bodies of Protestant Dissenters did very ge nerally refuse to admit the supremacy of the Crown. Was that true or false ? (Hear, hear.) He contended that it was not only true, but notorious and palpable. Then what became of the jeers of gentlemen opposite, who said that to deny authority to the Pope within this realm was the same thing as to assert the supremacy of the Crown. He must protest against that doctrine. (Hear, hear.) There was another body who were entitled to hold still stronger language, and to protest still more indignantly against this attempt to curtail their liberty. The members of the Presbyterian Church Establishment of Scotland were not bound to admit the supremacy of the Crown in the Church of England meaning ; and they, at all events, ought not to be taunted on that account, for they sat in that house under rights as well defined and recognised as those of any other members. They came there, not by tolera tion, but fully recognised as presbyteriaus, and as such they took the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. and learned gentleman assented to that proposition, would ha still say that an oath which denied the jurisdic tion of the Pope was the same thing with an oath which asserted the supremacy of the crown ? (Hear, hear.) The doctrine of the crown's supremacy was no doubt held by the Church of England ; it was firmly embodied in its au thorised religious documents; and to those documents they must go if they wished to find it, or know what it was. The hon. and learned gentleman, with all his acute ness, would wear out his eyes in the search before he could find it in the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If that were so, his charge that the Government was snaking a present of the doctrine of supremacy to the Romanising Protestants, as he called them, fell to the ground ; for this plain reason, that that doctrine existed elsewhere, but not in the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman had used an expression calculated to raise some prejudice, by saying that the alte ration of the oath of supremacy would not be applicable to that house alone, but to all other occasions on which the oath was enjoined to be taken. Whether his legal construction were sound or not was perfectly immaterial ; for the only two classes out of Parliament whom it was thought good policy to tie up and bind by a distinct decla ration of the doctrine of supremacy were the clergy and the members of the universities, and the obligations of those two classes would remain in substance exactly as they were independently of this bill. The doctrine really was con tained in the 37th article of the Church of England ; there, both the positive and the negative part of the doctrine were to be found. The positive part explained very clearly the various relations of the crown to the Established Church; and the latter part of the article dealt with the case of the Bishop of Rome, in terms which were admirable for their simplicity and clearness—" The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in the realm of England." (Hear.) It was said the articles were interpreted in a non-natural sense. He had never heard of any person attempting to show that there was the slightest difficulty about the con struction of the 37th article. Could they say as much for the oath of supremacy ? The hon. and learned gentleman, though he spoke of it very highly, and said that it had re ceived a judicial construction, had not attempted to state what that construction was. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not believe that it. had received a judicial construction ; at all events, its explanation was a matter of the very greatest difficulty. There had been various attempts to reconcile the declaration that the Pope had no jurisdiction in this realm, with the recognition by the law of acts performed by the Roman Catholic Church, as the solemnisation of mar riages and the bestowal of holy orders. They m ight be re conciled ; but the hon. and learned gentleman was n ot jus tified in speaking of this oath as ono framed in terms so happy, simple, and direct, that they were ca lculated to b a ffle the wiles of those who s oug ht to evade it. O n the co ntrary, the words in the article were such as wo uld bind men's opinions; for when a multitude of words were used, they could not be safely relied on as securities of the con stitution. He hoped the house would bear in mind that the oath of supremacy contained not one word about the doctrine of supremacy, which the Government was accused of making a present of to Romanising Protestants, and as serted nothing whatever as to the power of the crown in ecclesiastical matters. Not only so, but if the hon. and learned gentleman's construction were the true one, its effect would be (what he, perhaps, might like very well) to create a new law of exclusion against a large class of mem bers sitting in that house, to narrow the pale of the consti tution, and to take civil rights and privileges from those who now enjoyed them. (Hear.) To the change proposed with respect to the Roman Catholics the hon. and learne ined d that Catholics were longer to be calle d on to abjure the opinion that princes might be d e p osed and murdered by the Pope, and said that in the Reform a gentleman had urged various objections. He comp Act of 1832, the noble lord (Russell) had continued to maintain that declaration. That, as a mere arguntentena ad hominese, was not of much value but it was inaccurate as to the principle concerned. What Lord J. Russell said was, that it was an insult to ask a Roman C atholic to say that he did not hold the opinion that pri nces might be deposed and murdered by the sea of Rome ; for the very phrase bespoke the illegality of the action. No mancp . ld assert the contrary—that princes might be m ceraY the Pope of Rome, or any one else. It w as salt _ the_ e bdoc trine was once held in the Church of Rome. No doubt the deposing doctrine was held by large and powerful parties in that Church ; and was contested by other large and powerful parties ; but the hon. and learned gentleman bad with eiy missed the point in charging the - no ble lord with inconsistency. For his own part he did not attach the slightest value to the use of these words, either as to the renunciation of the opinion that princes might be mur dered, or even that they might be deposed by authority of tho See of Rome. And the hon. and learned gentleman had himself in g eniously admitted that h e did not t hink there was much efficacy in these securities. He said, " Let us stand by them to the last, however feeble they may be." (Hear, hear.) Sir F. DI ESIGER—It was not in reference to Roman Catholics that I used Lima expression. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it would be much to be regretted if the house attached weight and value to declarations of this kin d, which the y rea lly , did not carry in themselves. (Hear , hear.) These decla rations of the renunciation of partic ular o p inions g av e no security; the strength of the Church la y in the attachmen t of the country. (Hear, hoar.) Tha t attachment was bes t p m r a o n m . ote ( d h b e y ers what ) s o u n f i a t r e d a s class with eu s e class, was cone anti me awith toed, h was well convinced by experience that its harmony, it s unity, its usefulness, for the great purposes for which it existed, were best promoted by the exclusion and avoid ance, as far as might be, of these unhappy topics of religious difference. (Cheers.) .And the more they could reduce their law into a state of c,orrespondence with that opinion, the more they could put out from the law that which, without being of weight and efficacy in itself, became a source of strife a mongst them, and a cause of great soreness to the tender consciences of their fellow Christians and fellow men, the better they should dis charge the duties that were committed to them on behalf of the crown and the people of England. (Cheers.) The render of another declaration, in the following terms : hon, and learned gentleman also found fault with the sur "l do swear that I will uphold, to the utmost of power, the settlement of property within this realm established by the laws." It was a sight, he would not say pitiable, but one to stir regret, to see a gentleman of masculine and powerful intellect, and of such great and deserved emi nence as his hon. and learned friend, attaching value to such words as these put into the o ath of the Roman Ca tholics. (Hear, hear.) What was the construction of these words? He could hardly conceive any construction which the freak and fancy of an individual might not at tach to words like those. Professing to be bound by them, he might say he could not concur in any act, however simple, which tended in the slightest degree to affect the existing settlement of property. (Hear, hear.) These words were introduced to meet the apprehensions that existed in this country before 1829, with reference to opinions supposed still to linger among the people of Ire land regarding the arrangements of property under Charles 11. But if it was really intended to give those words any value and effect, to prevent persons from seeking a re versal of that arrangement, the words ought to have been made intelligible. It was not enough for Sir Robert Peel, however great his authority, to stand up in the house and say, " I have introduced these words for that purpose." He had no power to construe the act after it was passed ; and what was required was, that the words should have a definite reference to the object which they proposed to se oure. Did they strengthen their social system, increase the respect and reverence due to the law, help to Jana classes together, and strengthen the foundation of social obligations by calling upon men to contract particular ob ligations in regard to certain portions of their duty, se leeted, culled, and picked out from the rest, and leaving all the rest unnoticed? On the contrary, it had the op posite effect. To respect the settlement of property was part of the duty of every citizen. If a man did not perform that, there was the machinery of courts to call him to ac count ; but to call upon him to take an oath that he would respect the rights of property entitled him to say that he was not bound to reco g nise other rights which were just as sacred. (Hear, hear.) In religious matters, if they were to take one duty of Christianity, and oblige all persons to enter into a very solemn covenant to observe that duty, would not that have the very grievous and disastrous effect of weakening the general basis of obligation? (Hear.) It was desirable, therefore, to get rid of words which weak ened rather than strengthened the foundation of civil obli gations. The last of the hon. and learned gentleman's ob jeotious related to the repeal of the oath against subverting the present Church establishment, as settled by law within these realms. He fully granted that an alteration of the oath of 1829 was a serious matter, and ought not lightly to be dealt with. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) It was part of a great constitutional question ; and they ought not, except upon material, real, and solid ground, to tam per with those provisions of the law. (Hear.) He con fessed he had for very many years been of opinion, founded upon experience and on observation of the working of this oath, that although questions of this kind always must be open to a great deal of consideration as to time and place, yet that it would be well when declarations of this kind with regard to the property of the Church could be re moved from the statute-book. He did not think any good was produced by this declaration. Even if it had the effect in practice of limiting the action of some one, two, or three gentlemen.who gave a very large construction to these words, ho should still ask if that small and minute, he might say insignificant and trumpery, amount of secu rity and defence, whatever it might be, at all comparable to the mischief done by keeping up a cause of heartburn ing in the minds of a large class of our fellow-countrymen ? (Cheers.) He wanted to know, was the Roman Catholic entitled, or was he not, to sit there on terms of equa lity with other members ? If they chose to say—" In 1329, we admitted him, it is true, to the franchises of the constitution, but we only authorised him to exer cise them in a restricted. sense • we allowed him to come within our doors, but we said to him, by the voice of the law—" There are certain subjects which wo alone can han dle, and which are too sacred for you to touch ;" if that was their doctrine, he granted they were justified in main taining these words. He did not believe it was with any such intention that the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were parties to the framing of this oath. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman said the oath was received at the time with acclamation by the Roman Catholics and their friends. It was not surprising that the Catholics, seeing no great reason to object to the oath, should, both from motives of prudence and of gratitude to those who were making great exertions and sacrifices in their favour, have been unwilling to throw difficulties in the way, and should have put a liberal construction upon the oath proposed to them. But it was quite an error to say that it was received with acclamation by the friends of the Roman Catholics. They acquiesced in it with the greatest difficulty ; and it was only through fear of pro longing the frightful evils connected with the continuance of the Catholic question, that they were induced to accept that oath. (Hear, hear.) But he could not consent to stand on any narrower ground than this ; he held that the Roman Catholic was entitled to the same liberty in that house as any other member. (Cheers.) Upon that broad principle he founded his adoption of the opinion that the sooner they were rid of the terms contained in that oath the better. (Hear, hear.) Before the time of Catholic emancipation the property of the Church was, in a Parlia mentary sense, regarded almost as consecrated property. He had hardly another word to say upon the bill itself, but his hon. and learned friend had complained of his noble friend for having gathered a multitude of different legal obligations to take different oaths, into one neck as he called it; and disposed of them all at. once. His hon. and learned friend was somewhat severe when he com pared his noble friend in the execution of that process, to the Emperor Caligula; he doubted whether his hon. and learned friend was correct in ascribing to the Emperor Caligula' he idea which ho had pressed into this discus sion, for it was a greater monster—namely, the Emperor Nero—who used the expression which his hon. and learned friend had attributed to the Emperor Caligula. The Em peror Nero did say it would be a good and desirable thing if the people of Rome had but ono neck in order that they might be destroyed at once. However, his hon. and learned friend compared the destruction of these oaths to the destruction of the people of Rome, but he must confess he was thankful to his noble friend for having given but one neck to these oaths. That the human beings should be bandied up together in order that they might be de stroyed at once was a horrible thing for a man to desire, but to collect together a set of useless, needless, mis chievous, unintelligible, and perplexing obligations, that do nothing but give occasion for embarrassing the feelings of young and tender consciences, or to encourage old men to disobey their conscientious obligations, was quite a dif ferent thing. The one could bear no comparison to the other, and be thoughtwith regard to a matter of this kind his noble friend, in bundling all the oaths together, and presenting them at once to the axe of the executioner, had really rendered a considerable and conspicuous service to his country. (Cheers.) Mr. NAPIER complained that heretofore Lord J. Rus sell had openly avowed his intention to introduce the Jews into parliament, but by this measure he was burglariously breaking into the house in order to admit them. He de precated the abolition of anti-papal oaths while the cha racter of the Papacy remain unchanged. He argued, at exceeding length, upon this latter point, dilating upon the never dormant ambition of Rome, and for the great value of the safeguards which had been provided against it. He referred to Lord Somers, Lord Chatham, Lord Camden, and other authorities in favour of the Protestant bulwarks and protested against insulting the Jews by asking them to come into the house, not in a mealy way, but in this backdoor mode. He contended that when the oath was framed it assumed that all the persons in the house were Christians, and, in answer to Mr. Gladstone, he asked whether our duties now were less solemn than in former times, and concluded with an allusion to that day (Ascen sion-day), and a Scriptural quotation. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, who had early in the debate interrupted the chancellor of the Exchequer with a sup posed correction, which had been met Ise- Mr. Gladstone with good-natured ridicule, vindicated himself, and pro ceeded to say that he was not prepared to coincide with many of the objections of the bill. But a very important one was that it released all beneficed clergymen from tak ing the oath of supremacy. He insisted upon this because he knew that the oath had been a protection against many who wished to combine the opinions of Rome with the emo luments of the Church of England. Of that class, of course, Mr. Gladstone did not know the existence, The clause on this subject had been, no doubt, introduced without the knowledge of Lord J. Russell, but not without that of some other people. Mr. H. T. LIDDELL said that the sole object of this measure was to admit the Jews, for which, although he had hoard Mr. Robert Grant advocate such admission, he had never been able to make up his mind to vote. His constituents, however, would be unwilling to see any now measure of exclusion carried. Among the other reasons which weighed with him was the belief that if Jews were admitted to Parliament they would protest against the prayers with which the sittings of the house were com menced, and ho did not see what answer could be made to such an appeal. Sir J. WALMSLEY, supporting the measure, charac terised it as a great constitutional question. He wished that the Government would make up their minds not to ti ill° with it, but to stake upon it their existence as a Cabi net, in which case he had no doubt that it would he carried. Mr. NEWDEGAEE expressed his conviction that the house would not support Lord John Russell if he should en deavour to carry out his threat of proceeding by resolu tion. He dwelt with much earnestness upon the question whether the Christian character of the nation were to be preserved, and ridicule.! the opinion that unanimity would be promoted by such a measure as this. Bringing warnings from English history against concessions to Roman Catholics, and introducing the acquittal of the seven bishops, the cheers heard at Hounslow camp and the tears of King James, he expressed a hope that the House of Lords, the real representatives of the religious feeling of the country, would make a stand, as they had previously done, against such a measure. The policy of the Government was as unacceptable to the people of England as was a similar policy iu 1688. Mr. MIALL thought they had had too much historical lore on a simple question. In answer to appeals to dis senting members of the house, he said that if the measure were a just ono, it would not be opposed by them merely because it was acceptable to classes with whom they dif fered. Ho did not believe that the influence of Rome was increasing, but if it were, political restrictions would not, diminish it. We might as well try to exclude the sugges tions of the evil one by shutting doors and windows. He believed that such remedies served to intensify the mischief against which it was sought to guard, just as the belief is witchcraft flourished as long as the law was sot in motion against it. Why should Pi otestauts be so constantly fearful for their own religion? The Pope had no more powerful ally than the terrified imagination of weak Pro testants. Abolish all religious restrictions, and men would soon calm down on this subject. He also thought that all members of that house ought to be able to exercise an un fettered and uncrippled judgment in assisting to frame the laws of the country, and he gave every portion of the bill his cordial support. Mr. WHITESIDE considered that while human nature was what it was, oaths were necessary. Lord J. Russell was opening a perilous discussion, of which he might not live to see the end. He entered into an historical account of the oath which is taken by Roman Catholic ecclesias tics, which he considered was an oath of fealty to the Pope, against which the oath of supremacy was a pro test. He warned Lord J. Russell that if he announced that, without any necessity or outward pressure, he was determined to destroy every Protestant security, the people of England would hold a different opinion. Al luding to Sir R. Peel, he denied that statesman the right to be called the author of Catholic emancipation, for he had sat unmoved and heard Plunkett and Grattan, but, terrified by Mr. O'Connell, had framed a bill which had been the cause of most of the misfortunes of Ireland. But the Catholic oath had been framed with great wisdom; and now those who adopted Sir Robert's policy, and revered his memory, were goin g to abolish it without a blush. H e bitterly assailed Mr. Gladstone for ridiculing an oath which he admitted he did not understand, and he quoted a ser mon which he had heard on the Quirinal, in which, in pre sence of the Pope and Cardinals, the preacher had pro nounced a eulogiuni on the University of Oxford for the number of learned and active men she contained, who were devoted to the Papacy. Mr. Gladstone showed how well deserved was this praise. Mr. Whiteside then adverted to another sermon, by Dr. Posey, in which h e had sp o ked the Revolution as so far from glorious t hat it was blasphe mous. He believed that the Jew q uestion had be en dragged into this debate in order to insure its defeat. If this bill passed, might not Baron Rothschild be P er re e mi s er s or Chancellor, and give away Church patrothage,e faith it th judge in the Ecclesiastical Court on que v s et i e onusitifl regreti ? (The Baron was present.] He gave his against Jewish emancipation, but if a hbilw l for that pur pose, properly framed, were produced,i e ould give it his consideration, though with his present convictiond not s he should oppose it. (Roars of laughter.). But he di believe that the Jews would a lwa y s be alienated from the faith of God, and he hoped to see Baron Rothschild take his seat as a Christian, and help to maintain those Pro testant safeguards which the Chancellor of th%Exchequer wished to destroy. Lord J. RUSSELL—I eertaialy have beheld to-night a somewhat novel spectacle on the subject of the admission of Jews to Parliament and to office. The House of Lords having several times rejected the bill which had passed this house for the purpose, and the simple and separate purpose, of the admission .of the Jews, .1. thought it might be as well to put together the various provisions—(laughter and cheers)—and to propose to enact that without religious disability roma elected Iv the electors 9f this country should take their seats by an oath in conformity with the principle of religious liberty. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that a very ridiculous proposition. This, however, is at least apparent, that whereas in every former debate we have heard that Christians are united, that there is ono characteristic which pervades all denomina tions of Christians, that Jews are totally a separate race, that they are so divided from all Christians, that it is impossible to admit them, and that the character of Christianity is a broad and simple character, which is found in all the members of this house. Instead, I say, of holding that language, the Jews have been almost entirely omitted in the debate of this night, and the differences between Pro testant and' Catholic have formed the whole staple of the discussion. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, if facts and history did not console me I might be deterred from asking the house to affirm the second reading of this bill by the denunciations which have been offered by the hon. and learned member for Stamford, and the hon. and learned member for the Unive rs it y o f D u bli n . Th e hon. and learned member for Stamford says, " Here is an act passed in the beginning o f th e re i gn of Elizabeth, that wise prin cess here is an oath f rame d f or the secur i ty o f Protes t Protes tantism ; is it possible that you can think of altering an oath so sacred, and which more than three centuries ago was enacted by the wisdom of that great princess, and by the able statesmen who formed h er counc i l ?" Well sir, I might have some hesitation, thus alarmed by the hon. and learned gentleman's denunciations, from touching that oath, had I not the consolation of seeing that that oath Wits totally repealed by an act which was passed in the time o f th e revolution, so that I cannot feel guilty of altering that oath, incense another set of our wise ancestors, namely, King William and his ad visers, most properly thought fit to repeal it. Then came the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, who says, " Here is an oath enacted by the wisdom of King William and Lord Somers, you would not propose to alter it ?" Why that might induce me to hesitate and to pause, were it not that by an Act of the 10th 'Geo. IV., that oath, waS entirely altered, and that those very persons whom it wanin tended by that oath to exclude, were admitted by the Act of the 10th Geo. IV., so that the two acts which I am accused of touching with irreverent hands, the act of that wise Prin cess Elizabeth, and the act of that wise Prince King William, do not exist in the statute book, and therefore they having been slain already, it is impossible for me to kill them a second time. Now, this Act of the 10th Geo. IV. seems to me either to answer the arguments of hon. gentlemen oppo site, or to place the debate on a totally different foundation / They say, " Is it possible that, consistently with the Act of King William, Roman Catholics can be admitted ? Here is the security of that oath by which eccl esiastical and spiritual jurisdiction is denied to any foreign prince es potentate." Well that was intended to exclude Roman Catholics, but by the act to which I have referred Roman Catholics are exempt from its provisions ; and those words, " ecclesiastical" and " spiritual," for their sakes, for their benefit in in dulgence of their scruples, are omitted from the oath. Why, either one or the other of two consequences must follow. Either the whole of the declamation which I have been listening to for hours to-night is totally out of place, or else this consequence must follow, that hon. gentleman opposite are now proposing to reverse the policy of the Emancipation Act. (Hear, hear.) Are you prepared to affirm that no one ought to sit in this house unless they have taken that oath of King William, and that Roman Catholics ought in future to be excluded t (Hear.) Why, the hon and learned gentleman the member for the university of Dublin said —" If a person does not conform to the oaths which are enacted by the Bill of Rights, he has no business to sit in this house." Does lie mean by that allusion to the Bill of Rights, this oath of which I have spoken I Does he mean that oath of supremacy so much al luded to If he means that, he denies that Roman Catholics have a right in this house; if be does not mean that, his argu ment has no bearing on this debate. Then, observe what lam accused of doing. We have heard from the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down, that the oath of 1829 was framed with consummate ability. Now, I have taken those words which are applied to the Roman Catholics by the act of 1829. I have put them into the oath which I have inserted in my bill—the oath of supremacy is altered for that purpose, and those same words the hon. member for Stamford calls a " mean and mutilated declaration;" and the right hon. gentle man the member for the university of Dublin calls them "weak and washy words," (Cheers and laughter.) At one moment it is said that these words have been framed with consum mate ability, and that it does great honour to the wisdom of Sir Robert Peel to have framed such words ; but at the next moment they are mean and mutilated, and weak and washy, and it was exceedingly wrong of me to have thought of introducing them, (Cheers and laughter.) What I have proposed to do is, to take words which all the members of the house could adopt. The persons against whom these words were particularly framed—the persons against whom they were intended as a bar and a security, were the Roman Catho lics, but you have admitted the Roman Catholics. (Hear, hear.) Why, then, not take the words which you have al lowed to be sufficient for the Roman Catholics, and let the Protestants, against whom you do not w:sh for a security, be admitted by the same words ? (Hear, hear.) You do not want the security against the Protestants ; these words, " ecclesiastical and spiritual," were affirmed as a security against Roman Catholics. You say you are ready to give up these words so far as regards those against whom these words were a security; but as regards the men against whom y ou want no security, you will take and preserve these words as the great safeguards of the Constitution. (Hear, hear.) Con sider what the Protestants of this country are as a community. They don't want to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Pope. (Hear, hoar.) They don't want the Pope's tribunals in this country. (Hear,'hear.) They don't refer to the Pope or to his authority on the subject of marriages, or on any transac tions of civil life, and therefore it is quite unnecessary, in ad dition to all the securities you have in their daily life, in their worship on every Sunday, in their usual practices on every day—to ask for any security from them that they are ready to protest against foreign interference. (Hear, hear.) It shows that no security is wanting. (Hear, hear.) Here were a class of persons whom you did not admit, and whom you said were not to be trusted, and you took security against them; but you now find that these persons are to be trusted, that your suspicions, whether well founded or not, are at all events over; and you don't think it necessary any longer to take bail against those persons; but against all persons you do take bail, and it will be a satisfaction to me that if the suspected persons are not subject to any restraint, you will not put the restraint upon those who are not suspected. (Hear.) The argument has gone so much on the various statements I have made, that I am obliged to speak somewhat on the general subject. It appears to me that an oath is a very solemn proceeding. (Hear, hear, and a laugh from the Opposition benches.) I cannot think it ought to be taken lightly. I cannot think that the peers and bishops in the House of Lords and the members of the House of Commons ought to come here and declare, in the presence of God, that which is a stale and unnecessary proposition. (Hear.) It seems to me a degree of levity that ought not to be commit ted. (Hear.) Well, what is the declaration—what is the oath ? It is in these words :—" I solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe, in my conscience, that not one of the descendants of the person who claimed to be Prince of Wales during the lifetime of the late King James 11., and who during his own lifetime pretended to be and took upon himself the style and title of King James 111. of England, and King James VIII. of Scotland and so forth, has any right or title to the Crown of this realm, or any of its dominions whatever, and I abjure any allegiance to him; so help me, God." At the end of that oath you say " so help me, God," thus using the solemn form of an oath, when every one of us knew perfectly well that there was no such person to claim any allegiance from any person in this country. And then, in order to blink the absurdity of it, the hon. and learned gentleman who last spoke has said that he saw on the tomb in Rome, where tho last of the Stuart family is buried—a tomb put up, I be lieve, at the expense of his late Majesty King George the Fourth—(hear)—a certain inscription, and the last of that family having been buried there, he thinks that he is a most formidable Pretender--(laughter)—against whom you should keep up this solemn form oath. (Hear.) Ought we not to let this oath be buried in that very tomb in which lies the last of the Stuarts (Hear, hear.) They were a false, a treacherous, and a tyrannical race. lam very glad they were rejected, and that none of the descendants of James the Second ever came back again, or were allowed to claim any right to govern this country ; but now that they are all departed, it is not necessary that the members of this house and of the other house of Parliament, in which there are several bishops, should go through the form of this oath. (Hear.) Then we go ou to the oath which is taken by Roman Catho lics ; I will come afterwards to the question of the oath of supremacy. In this oath the Roman Catholics declare that it is not au article of their faith, and that they do renounce and reject the opinion, that princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed or murdered- by their subjects, or any persons whatever. The honourable and learned gentle man has said that I left these words in the bill of 1852 the bill for amending the representation. I did leave the word " depose," but I left out the word " murder," which I thought very insulting. (Hear.) I certainly left in the word " depose," but I really don't think that paragraph is a para graph of any use. When wo are framing an oath it should be a mere simple oath, that every member of this house can take, whatever religious persuasion he may belong to. I don't think it is worth while keeping up any reference to this doctrine, which, whatever any gentleman may say, I do not believe at this time forms the belief of the Roman Catholics of this country. (Hear.) Then the oath goes on to say, "And that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this real," as established. On that I will not attempt to , add anything to what has been said by my right hou, friend near me—(hear) —in his elognent speech, which, I trust, as the hon. gentlemen has std,ai will go forth throughout the country producing the effect was so well calculated to create. (Cheers.) Then the oath goes on to say, " I do hereby declare that I will not try to subvert the present Church Establishment as settl ed b y law within this realm." Now these words were put in no doubt in 1829 with the view of their forming a security for the Church Establish ment. Let us consider a little in what sense an oath of this kind ever gives you any s ecurit y at all. (Hear.) When per sons are called upon to do a certain act ; when they feel it is an obligation upon them which they ma y upon to perform, the importance of an be fairly called oath—the God to witness to the truth of what they say, and to their willingness to perform eertain acts, no declare, and do no doubt give a v ery solemn sanction to what I think give a security w hich the community has a right to ask, and upon which they may depend. Now, for instance, a man relating so me transaction which may f ay .. be afterwards the subject of a crimi nal p rocess, amongst his lends at the dinner t a ble, may relate circumstanc es loosel y and carelessl y —he ma y mix up with wait he has seen and personally known other circumstances which he believes from having hoard, but upon which he has no decided knowledge. That same man, when summoned into a court of justice as a witness, on a criminal trial, may properly be called upon to swear he did tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and under that obligation, and in that presence, he will take care to re late only that which he is sure that he has seen, and to disre gard those circumstances which, in a careless moment, in narrative amongst his friends, he interspersed in what he re lated, thereby showing that he had no objection to depose to them on oath. (Hear.) So also with regard to the duty of allegiance. All persons, I trust, who are members of Parlia ment, and other persons, who are called upon to take this oath, are ready to perform their duty of allegiance, a n d, th e i r duty being solemnly called upon, to perform the taking of an oath does not give an additional security for the performance of that duty. (Hear, hear) But it is a very different thine ° when yelp ask men to undert a k e a d uty which is contrary to what they believe some other duty imposes, and what in other circumstances they may fi n d themselves ' unable to per form. (Hear.) Now, sir, on looking upon this act, a re markable circumstance occurs to me, which is an illustra tion of what I am saying. In the beginning of the reign of Charles 11. our ancestors thought they should frame some provision by which an insurrection such as had distinguished the former civil war should be prevented, by which men bound themselves not to take arms against the Sovereign, and not to use, as the leaders of the popular party had done in the time of Charles 1., the name of the Sovereign against his own person. And accordingly an oath was framed, which un derwent, I think, seventeen days' debate in the House of Lords, in these words, "I, A. • B declare it is not l awful, upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the King, and I do abjure that traitorous disposition of taking arras ou his authority against his person, and against those who are cemmissieneci by him." The terms wore very much debated, and during these debates Lord Halifax, with his usual point and wit, said that which never has been, and could not be answered, I think. He said,—" An oath of this kind will give you no security; if every man in this town had taken a solemn oath not to break into his neighbour's house, and not to rob it, no man for that reason would leave his door un bolted and his house open." (Laughter.) That was the say ing of Lord Halifax, as able and witty a man as ever perhaps took part in the debates of Parliament; and what happened? The oath was enacted, the first clause declared that in the opinion of the majority that governed at that time it was not lawful, on any pretence whatever, to take arms against the King; but it afterwards happened that King James, in the opinion of this country, of Whigs and Tories, violated the conditions on which he alone could be allowed to reign. Both parties took arms against him; the oath was totally dis regarded. By means of the arms they had taken against him they dethroned the King, and in one of the first acts of King William stands a clause by which that oath is totally repealed. Such is the security of an oath against that vehicl e men feel to be their duty. The men of that day felt it to be their duty to oppose King James in arms, and to dethrone him, and they were not deterred by this oath, which had been framed with such infinite care after 17 days of discussion in the House of Commons. The same thing is applicable to this oath with regard to the Roman Catholics. Ido not know how Roman Catholics in general understand that oath; but this I know, that there are only two exceptions of Roman Catholic mem bers who thought it was their duty to abstain from giving their votes in cases where ecclesiastical questions came under discussion. With these one or two exceptions, the Roman Catholic members, who thought it would be for the benefit of Ireland that the revenues of the Church establishment should be entirely taken away, had no scruple or hesitation in giving a vote for that purpose. (Hear, hoar.) How they understood the oath it is not for me to say. (Hear, hear.) I remember Mr. O'Connell explained that it did not mean revenues, that it meant doctrine, discipline, and government of the Church, and that he intended to leave the doctrine, disci pline, and government of the Church as it stands. (Hear.) But what I know is, that this oath gives you no security against those who are disposed to vote against the revenues of the Church, and what I do know further, because I re member it particularly well is, that Lord Stanley, the present Lord Derby, rose in his seat, he then sitting on this side of the house, read the terms of the oath which I have just read to you, with a few words that come further on in regard to the Protestant religion, and asked then if gentlemen who had taken that oath would vote on the question before the house that night. (Hear.) Ido say it is a great evil and a great mischief, that when a political question is before the house— the question whether the Church establishment should have certain revenues or not—a question upon which members of the House of Commons should be free to vote as their sense of what is due to the welfare of the country dictates—there should be a certain set of members sitting itnhetmhisthhaotasethaegay against t an w no h t te om vo a i a n member can got np way upon dte a ll n that question without a violation of their vote. (Hear, hear.) You may say that the Roman Catholic members have not asked for a change of this oath: They may have considered it was a compact at the time, and that they are bound not to ask f or the removal of that oath. But I say, without any suggestion from them, and without knowing whether they wish for a change of this oath, that for the sake of our proceedings, for the sake of giving to every member of this house that freedom which he should have, for the sake of not obliging a man to give a vote for which, if he gave it ono way, he may be accused of violating a solemn oath, and for which, if he gives it the other, ho may be accused by nearly the whole of his constituents of deserting the interests of his coun try and the trust committed to him. Ido say that you should not put members of this house in that situation, and that, yon _ should, by the terms of the oath, leave every man to - vote upon every political question as he thinks it to be his duty. Be his opinion whatever it may, he should be as free to give effect to it by his vote on a question affecting the Church esta blishment—be it with respect to church rates or any other matter—as he is on a question with regard to the malt tax or the Exchequer bonds. Now, sir, I am told that this oath was a solemn settlement made in 1825, and that it ought not to bo disturbed. My right hon. friend near me has answered that argument, but I certainly can bear witness that when for about twenty-five years the country has been kept is agitation by the discussion of this question and the difficulty of settling it—when one'year there was a majority of five one way, and the next year perhaps a majority of ten the other way—when the Cabinet had been for years divided upon thelquestion, we, who had no concern in the Government at that time, but who were prepared to lend our aid in the settlement of a question which we had long thought stood in the way of the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and of the rights of a great portion of our feliow subjects, were ready to lend our aid to anything that appeared to be a tolerable settlement of that question. I remember perfectly well, and so does my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), a meeting of some of the friends of the Roman Catholics, which was then held at Sir F. Burdett:s. We then discussed the merits of the proposed scheme and the objections to it. We discussed the hardship of disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders, the injustice of excluding Mr. O'Connell when Roman Catholics were admitted, and the terms of the oath which we are now considering; and the result was that wo wished to support the Government in carrying that measure, but that there were cer tain alterations that we wished to make in it. Lord Althorp was the bearer of our wishes to Sir R. Peel, and I perfectly well remember his saying that ho was informed by Sir R. Peel that the measure, as he had introduced it, was the best mea sure which he thought he should be able to carry, and that the success of that measure would be endangered if the friends of the Roman Catholics insisted upon any of those alterations. With that declaration we were content. We supported Sir R. Peel in all the divisions upon that subject, and we interposed no amendments. But, sir, Ido think that at the end of a quarter of a century, it is allowable to take into consideration some of the forms of the oath then imposed ; and to consider whether some parts of it, which bring on harsh and unplea sant discussions amongst the members of this house, are not unnecessary, and oven almost absurd. I own Ido not think that the terms of that oath are to be removed from the deli berations of Parliament; and I think it is a fair subject for consideration, if we go into committee, whether we shall keep that oath as it stands—whether we shall take the oath in thebill, or whether any other terms shall be adopted. But this I must say—that I do not think it is fair to keep up as part of -the oath a declaration which puts a man under the imputation of having violated his oath if he votes one parti cular way upon political questions. Now, sir, I come to the question which has been so much argued, and upon which it is said that no alteration should be made, and that is, the negative declaration in the oath—" And I do declare that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate bath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-emiuenco , or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." I have already alluded to the manner in which 1 propose to alter this part of the oath; and I cannot•ithink that the removal of the ob ligation to take that oath'at all alters the laws of this coun try. The common law of this country denies to any foreign prince or potentate jurisdiction or authority in this country. If there are any persons against whom you wish to guard, it is the Roman Catholic body. Now, with regard to them, you have parted with the security you had. In the year 1829 that question was settled so far as regards Roman Catholics; and with regard to Protestants you need no security. But with regard to Protestants the question is not so perfectly clear and plain as the hon. gentleman opposite seems to think. The right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) said that Lord Somers found this oath perfectly plain. I have no doubt he did, because he under stood it as excluding Roman Catholics, and when it was the law that Roman Catholics were excluded, nothing could be easier than to take that oath, which denied that there was any jurisdiction or power upon the part of Roman Catholics —the whole tendency of the law being to deny them any power or jurisdiction whatsoever. But since that time very great changes have been made. What do you say to the law of 1791, which allowed the performance of their religious functions by priests of the Roman Catholic community ; those priests receiving their power from a bishop, and that bishop receiving his jurisdiction with the consent of the Pope of Rome. The acts of that priest, in performing the ceremony of marriage, are acknowledged. Can you then say that it is quite clear that there is no jurisdiction or authority whatever exercised by a foreign prince 4 You must say that it is not so exorcised by the direct authority and consent of the law. ' But that there is no such thing I think it is very difficult to aver. Now, let me remind the house of what occurred in the case of the Sussex peerage, in the House of Lords. When the case of the Sussex peerage was heard before Lord Lynd hurst and the other law lords, Dr. Wiseman was examined as to his functions and his knowledge with regard to the law of mar riage at Rome. He said he had considerable knowledge, and on being asked how he obtained it, ho sai d he was a_judlde acting under an authority given him by the Pope. He but H a said he had no doubt that his*uthority was entirely' sp iri tual, he said also that he separated pei•s ons h were lawfully married , that the w personso h e didwere n debarredo t think tame ; and that, under t his a pp rehension from the rites of the church if they did not respeetthey re maned separate. Now his sen this is clearly a. very con siderable nees s l i i d ft e c ra r b h l e e hacdivgilivecrisciisqoupenincieon to p ensueupon th ese est fr q o u mh io is ns mar riage at c onsiderable length. and /tad declared that he was guided by the decrees of the Council of Trent, and that his d ec isions might be overthrown a t Rome, the Lord Chanoellor declared that ho was a good wit ness because be came w ithin the description of a person possessing certain knowledge rir lute officii ; and Lord Langdale . said that ho filled a sit ua ti o n and was engaged. in the performance of impor toarnitmillo importance, and in order to discharge which properly he was bound to make himself acquainted with the law of mar riage. Now, this person so declared by Lord Langdale in the House of Lords to be engaged in discharging important public duties was a Roman Catholic priest, carrying into effect the decisions of the Court of Roam upon tho im portant subject of marriage. Well, it is true, that he has no temporal authority in this country, and that his decrees have no civil effect; but although wo may say that he had no spi ritual authority, I cannot think the matters() totally clear and manifest as some hon. gentlemen have chosen to describe is. I think that now you have admitted Roman Catholics to this house, it is much better that you should insert in the oath words than we can all take, and with respect to which there should be no ambiguity, One honourable gentleman found fault with the words " temporal and civil" and de• Glared that he would rather have no such words in the oath. Well, I do not think that these words are essential to the thought allde° oath. I introduced them because , being words taken by securities f ie th s e of il t o b us e aecotf of 1829, i n t si m de i r h e t a beila considered. of .de the rad desirable as a security that Roman Catholics g should continue to take them. Another gentleman has spoken of the obliga. , tion of persons who receive a benefice in this country to take the oath of supremacy, an d has asked me whether I would confine this bill to members of Parliament. Well, I was taunted one year by an honourable member because I confined the bill to members of Parliament I have, how ever, no objection to confine it to members of Parliament , and all persons holding office, because that would attain t he object I have in view. I believe I have now gone over the dif ferentd parts of the oath, and I have now, therefore, only tor a very few words with respect to the general effect of th e bil l, . by which Jews will be admitted to seats iu this house and to offices under the Crown. Now I have no new aril" e nt to use onlY upon this subject. But it appears to ma that th e that they differ argu ment ever used against the proposition is, thatton If the widely and entirely from us on the subjecits portions who principle that the house wishes to adopt uld be excluded front differ from us in religious opinions should maintaining the pre this house, they will be quite righ t i as in the case of the sent exclusion of the Jews ; but w he n , of the Protestant Roman Catholics, and as in the case and varieties of religious dissen ters, you admit that differences a co of legislative and civil opi nions aro not a bar to the perfor e man Jewish body are a body well functions, I then say that the of the State—and, if affected to the Crown—good ci • P ar li a ment, as a ble to give you advice elected as members of upon all matters that conce rn the State as any other subjects of her Aajesty wh o might be elected to this house. I call upon the only bar, on the ground of religious opinions, wh i ch you, then, to remov e still remains. I call upon you to remove it • • b ecau se you must be sensible that it was the influence of the 'Protestant dissenters in elections that enabled them to estab lish• •claim to the abolition of the Test then and Corporation Acts , • a nd that it was the formidable attitude of the Rom an Catholics in Ireland which induced you to remove the disabi lities which prevented them sitting in this house or occupying office. If the Jews aro equally as trustworthy as any other part of the people of her Majesty, I call upon you not to continue an act of religious intolerance because they are few in number, and have neither the political influence of the Protestant dis senters, or the formidable attitude which the Roman Catho lics assumed in 1821). I call upon you, therefore, to as sent to this measure on the ground of justice, and on the ground of religious liberty. I call upon you to make the oath which admits members to this house simple ; and to free it from the charge of making odious distinctions between members of different religions, and of endeavouring, as has INon done was out ional 3 AT ries.' —Th' , and I I 1