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

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 Robed 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 , care. Did they strengthen their social system, increase the respect and reverence de.y to the law, help to bind 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 lected, 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 recognise 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 weak enedwhich. rather than strengthened the foundation of civil obli gations. The last of the hon. and learned gentleman 's ob jections related to the repeal of the oath against subvertin g the present Church establishment, as settl ed by t l i a o w n wi of th th in e these realms. He fully granted that an al oath of 1829 was a serious matter, and ought ra not lightly to question ; and th ey ought be dealt with. (Hear hear from the Oppos i tion .) It was part of a great cons t ituti onal solid ground, to tam not, except upon material, real, a nd_ per with those provisions (Hear.) o fthe b l e a s w o . ofopi.nlo, filo:aced:l - he had for very many g ear s upon experience and on observation of the working of this oath, that although questions of this kind always of this kind lwaysmust be open to a great deal of c onsideration as to time a nd p l ace, yet that it would be well when declarations with regard to the property of the Church could b e 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, he should still ask if that small and minute, h e 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 lug 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 1829, 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 we 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 sho u ld h ave p u t 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 knew not whether the hon. member for Montrose, or some peculiarly audacious Radical of those days, might have entertained notions of a different character. (Laugh. ter.) They made no motions ; or if they did, such opinions wore looked on as only those of a small section ; there was no large organised party, no great breadth. and depth of opinion prepared to deal freely with church property. In that state of things, when it was considered an obligation incumbent upon Parliament, though not ex pressed, to keep their hands off the property ofthe Church, he did not at all wonder that it should be thought quite warrantable to say that what was assumed as to Protes tants should be required of Roman Catholics in express terms; and that was not inconsistent with the view that they were to be on an equal footing in the house. But how stood the matter now? Did members think themselves entirely precluded, under the terms on which they sat there, from giving votes which affected the property of the Church ? Why, on Tuesday night, a majority of that house, including some gentlemen who sat opposite, declared their intention in the most emphatic manner to deal with the property of the Church, and that in a mode the most free and sweeping, by the process of extinction. (Hear, hear.) Ho regretted that vote; but, nevertheless, it was given. Now, he wanted to know, was that a lawful vote for Pro testaut members? ("No," from Mr. Drummond.) Tho hon. member for Surrey said no. But in the opinion of the 129 gentleman who gave that vote, it was a lawful vote; and if it was within the competence of Protestants to give such a vote, did they or did they not hold the opinion that it was a vote which it was not competent for Roman Catholics to give? (Hear, hear.) That was a most serious question- -too serious to be treated as a matter of party. He thought that a most dangerous doe • trine to hold, though it was the only one which could justify and support the terms of the oath. He repudiated and protested against that doctrine ; for he was convinced that its authoritative adoption by the legislature would lead to consequences never sufficiently to be deplored. Upon that ground he contended that Lord John Russell had done well in inviting them to clear away those por tions of the Roman Catholic oath. The nature of an oath recommended the proposition of the noble lord. There was great advantage in having one oath for all the members of an assembly like that. (Hear, hear.) Some thought it better that they should come to thedischargeof their duties without any oath at all. lie did not agree with them. He thought that an oath tended tokeep up that solemn and re verential temper with which men ought to address them selves to the discharge of high and solemn duties. (Hear.) But the oaths ought to be framed in a manner adapted to that object. They ought to be brief, simple, and, if it could be so contrived the same for all ; they ought to go directly to their point, and to be divested of all unmean ing and useless matter • in order that the words they used under that so l emn sanc tion, in the presence of God, might be used with a sense of the presence of God, and with a temper befitting men who were doing a solemn act. If there were to be oaths ' that was the spirit in which they should be tak e n ; and if such was the spirit, the oaths ought to bo short, simple, to go direct to the point, and, above all, to avoid the use of ambiguous language, which only served as a trap for the conscience. (Hear, hear.) He did not iu the slightest degree censure the framers of this oath in their times and circumstances; but at present it was neither more nor less than a trap for the conscience. Roman Catholics sitting in that house had a claim to re lief from an oath which bound them to matters which he declared, he could not tell how, if a Roman Catholic, he should be able to construe. (Hear.) He should be placed in a situation of much difficulty between the obligations which ho felt he owed to his constituents and his country, and the apparent and prima facie meaning of the words of the oath. (Hear, hear.) Having that feeling, therefore, it was not surprising that he should think it desirable to get rid of words which were so vexatious and entangling in their character, and so entirely worthless with reference to the security of our national institutions. (Hear, hear.) 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 the idea which he 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 one 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 bundled 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 meu If disobey their conscientious obligations, was quite a dif ferentt thing. The one could boar no comparison to the ? li r" , and lie thought with regard to a matter of this kind presenting really renderedfrlend, in bundling all the oaths together, and ing them at once to the axe of the executioner, had hi s a considerable and conspicuous service to country, re , Mr- NAPleLt ueers * ) into parliam4tirn Rus sell had openly comp l ained that heretofore Lord J. Rus wed his intention to introduce theJows breaking iato the ;, l it, by this measure he was burglariously precated the abodino se in order to admit them. He de racier of the Pap e n of anti-papal oaths while the elm exceeding length, u 7„,l e t rie- unchanged. He argued, at never dormant amdiitien ofllatter point, of the safeguards which le dilating upon the ,Poroe, and for the great value referred •to Lord Somers, Lboeaa provided against it. He piatharn, Lord Camden, and other authorities in favourrdothtehe Protestant bulwarks and protested against insulting • to come into the house, not in a u gly rajs by asking them r a i,the oath wag the h b o u. ll2. t s i e n w t e h r i e s backdoor mode. He contended that h 'a e . Mr. GlaAston persons s m i n the:: in former'"ked framed it assaint,ediothaanst w. al o i r th to e Christians, whether our duties now were less times,mr. j a . nd a. c . o p n li cl i u L de L d rm wi o th ßE an i allusion to tl,ocabtrh.:.;:st in n c r l a. the ye( Gladstone ,eb.ua t. debate seen sion-day), and a Scriptural quotation. • interrupted the chancellor of the Exchequer with o posed correction, which had been met with good-natured ridicule, vindicated himself, and pro importantfr om many of the objections of the bi ll. B el u er t g a yra ve e ry n one was that it released all ben efice d . Is because tak ing the oath of supremacy. many againstainrsrisotteecoltuiophonth he knew that the oath had bee n of course who wished to combine th e opinions of Rome with the emo luments of the Church of England. Of that class, , Mr. Gladstone did not know the existence, The clause on this subject had been, no doubt, introduced withttoautthofe knowledge of Lord J. Russell, but not without h 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 h oar d M r . R o b er t G ran t a d voca t e suc h admission, l ie had never been able to make up his mind to vote. H is constituents, however, would be unwilling to see any new measure of exclusion carried. Among the other reasons which weighed with him was the belief that if Jews were a lmitte,l to Parliament they would protest against the prayers with which the sittings of the house were com menced, and he did not see what answer could be made to sutt i en appeal.. J. WALUSLEY, supporting the measure, cliaree -7,—,U 1 .. ~akj. , .. ~/ ,4 4.ae as a great constitutional question. lie wished -74.:f-, 1 ~ ,,-- , - . 1 vernmeet would make up their minds not to i. ;,,...43..: , t, but to stake upon it their existence as a Cabi-. tee se 1 st-Yee_ li case he had no doubt that it would lie carried. 1-71: ' ; ,...,93: , ,4 .: -S': .) ` DEGAEE expressed his conviction that the ~,frir.." . _ not support Lo rd . John Russell if he should en .7,../..„.7„.,e _se ! , ( 1 le''''';' e' i'.- 1,4411 4 ntirry put Me threat of proceeding by reselu- , I le ' ld VerS 113 e e. ee- et Iv ONE THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 2G, 1554. tion. He dwelt with much earnestness upon the question whether the Christian character of the nation were to be preserved, and ridiculed 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 polioy of the Government was as unacceptable to the people of England as was a similar policy in 1688. Mr. MULL 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 one, it would not be opposed by them merely because it was acceptable to classes with wham they dif. fered. He 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 g uard, just as the belief in witchcraft flourished as l ong as the law was set in motion against it. Why should Protestants 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. Ho 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 going to abolish it without a blush. He bitterly assailed Mr. Gladstone for ridiculing an oath which he admitted ho 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 enlogium 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. Pusey, in which he had spoken of the Revolution as so far from glorious that it was blasphe mous. He believed that the Jew question had been dragged into this debate in order to insure its defeat. If this bill passed, might not Baron Rothschild be Premier or Chancellor, and give away Church patronage, or sit as judge in the Ecclesiastical Court on questions of faith ? [The Baron was present.] He gave his vote with regret against Jewish emancipation, but if a bill for that pur pose, properly framed, were produced, he would give it his consideration, though with his present convictions he should oppose it. (Roars of laughter.) But he (lid not believe that the Jews would always 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 the Exchequer wished to destroy. Lord J. RUSSELL—I certainly 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, I thought it might be as well to put together the various provisions—(laughter and cheers)—and to propose to enact that without religious disability persons elected by the electors of 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 one characteristic which pervades all denomina tions of Christians, that Jews are totally a separate race, that they are so divided from WI 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 , University of Dublin. The hon. and learned member for Stamford says, " Here is an act passed in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, that wise prin cess ; here is an oath framed for the security of 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 her council I" 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 was totally repealed by an act which was passed in the tim3 of the revolution, so that I cannot feel guilty of altering that oath, because another set of our wise ancestors, namely, King 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 was in tended by that oath to exclude, were admitted by - the Act of the 10th Geo. IV., so that the two acts which fain 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 ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction is denied to any foreign prince or potentate." Well that was intended to exclude Roman C Itholics, 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 is 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 ono 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 ? (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 he mean by that allusion to the Bill of Rights, this oath of which I have spoken ? Does ho mean that oath of supremacy so much al luded to ? If ho means that, he denies that Roman Catholics have a right in this house; if he 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 hen. 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 alt red for that purpose, and those same words the hon. member for Stamford calls a " mean andmutilated 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 beeff framed with consum mato 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 M 9 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 iuteuded 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 wash 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 Cat'iolics. You say you aro 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 you want no security, you will take and preserve these words as the great safeguards of the Cot stitutiou. (Hear, hear.) Con- side; what the Protestants of this country are as a community. They don't want to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Pope. (Hear, hear.) They don't want the Pope's tribunals in this country (Hear, hear.) They don't refer to the Popo 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 tbo 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 which is a stale and lightly. I seems ( t H o e i na (Hear.) ) a Heusi of Lord cannot think that the peers and bishops in the come here and declare, in the presence of Lords and,the members of the House of Commons ought to oath 7 It is in God, that unnecessary proposition. (Hear.) It degre e of levity that ought not to be commit thleve,''in my declare that I these words :_ is the declaration—what is the the descendants of of Wales during the rson and who during hi„ ~vlifetime of . took upon himself the style of England, andle ons e solemnly iene e, that and not sincerely one of Who claimed to be Prince the late King James 11., andlifetipie pretended to be and King James title l of forth, has any right or title to the i. o ''? or any of its dominions any allegiance to him ; so help whatever, King James 111. Scotland and so of this realm, me, God." of I abjure of that oath you say " so help me, God," thus tie end solemn form of an oath, when every one of us knew usi e n . f the well that there was no such person to claim any a li o : n al y from any person in this country. And then, in orderucte blink the absurdity of it, the hon. and learned gentleman who last spoke has said that he saw ou the tomb in Rome, where the last of the Stuart family is buried—a tomb put up, I b e _ lieve, at the expense of his late Majesty King George the Fourth—(hear) --a certain inscription, and the last of th a t family having been buried there, he thinks that he is a most formidable Pretender-:—(laughter)—agaipst whom, you should keep up this solemn form oath. this oath be buried in that very tomb in which lies the last of the Stuarts ? (Hear, hear.) They were a false, a treacherous, AUd 4 tyrannical race. I am very glad they wore 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 on 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 an 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 we 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 bon, friend near ' me—(hear)—in his eloquent speech, which, I trust, as the hon. gentleman has said, will go forth thrOUghout the country producing the effect it 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 settled by 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 security at all. (Hear.) When per sons are called upon to do a certain act ; when they feel it is au obligation upon them which they may be fairly called upon to perform, the importance of an oath—the calling God to witness to the truth of what they say, and to their willingness to perform certain acts, no doubt give a very solemn sanction to what they declare, and do I think give a security which the community has a right to ask, and upon which they may depend. Now, for instance, a man relating some transaction which may be afterwards the subject of a criminal process, amongs, t his friends at the dinner table, may relate circumstances loosely and carelessly—he may mix up with what he has seen and personally known other circumstances which he believes from having heard, 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 teeth, 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 me, and other persons, who are called upon to take this oath, are ready to perform their duty of allegiance, and, their duty being solemnly called upon, to perform the taking of an oath does not give an ad•litional security for the performance of that duty. (Hear hear) But it is a very different thing when you ask men to undertake a duty which is contrary to what they believe some other duty imposes, and what in other circumstances they may find 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 lam 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 au oath was framed, which un derwent, I think, seventeen days' debate in the House of Lords, in these words, "I, A. 8., declare it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the King, and I do abjure that traitorous disposition of taking arms on his authority against his person, and against those who are commissioned by him." The terms were 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 iu 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 which 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, hear.) How they understood 1 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 tho 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 in this house against whom a member can get up and tell , them that they cannot vote i n a c er tain way upon 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 for the re mova l o f th a t 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 one way, he may be accused of violating a solemn oath, and for which, if he gives it the other, he may be accused by nearly the whole of his constituents of deserting the interests of his coun try and the trust committed to him. I do say that you should not put members of this house iu that situation, and that you 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 be 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 in 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 the - question, we, who had no concern in tho 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 we 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 he 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 bo 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 even 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 k eep that oath as it stands—whether we shall take the oath in the bill, 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 questioh 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 hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." I have already alluded to the manner in which 1 prapose to alter this part of the oath ; and I cannot think that the removal of the ob- ligation to take that - oath at all alters tho 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 tho 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 bon. gentleman opposite seems to think. The right bon. 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 priestsrneoc leiiive i. receiving 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 funct ions by priests of the Roman Catholic community ; those so exerci sed there i s receiving his The acts jurisdictiont l o i their i t r hat wper priest, withes from,ithen bishop, ac.o n performings econsent and n f t d ht that h e a t "o bishopceremonyp Pope of quite u ex f e n i rc a . l e t a g r e, that a a. e n acknowledged . oju jurisdiction d i c Can tio a y o o r u a t u b t e h n o say rjy that whatever by a foreign prince ? You must say that it is not ttr s 9 w me remind the house of whp,t eCCIUTQCI ill the t hacredobety the direct authority find consent of-the law. __ there is no such thing I think it is very difficult to case of the Sussex peerage, in the House of Lords. When the case of the Sus§ex peerage • was heard before Lord Lynd hurst and the other law lords, Dr. Wiseman was examined as to his inactions and his knowledge with regard to thelaw of mar riage at Rome. He said ho had considerable knowledge, and on being asked how he obtained it, he said he was a judge acting under an authority given him by tho Pope. He said he bad no doubt that his authority was entirely spiritual, but he said also that he separated persons who he did not think were lawfully married ; that the persons ware debarred from the rites of the chureh if they did not respect his sen tence ; and that, under this apprehension they re mained separate. Now this is clearly a very con siderable civil. consequence to ensue from his sentence. After he had given his opinion upon these questions of mar riage at considerable length, and had declared that he was guided by the decrees of the Council of Trent, and that his decisions might be overthrown at Rome, the Lord Chancellor declared that he was a good witness because he came within the description of a person possessing certain knowledge vir tute ; and Lord Langdale said that he filled a situation of importance, and was engaged in the performance of impor tant public duties, 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 iu discharging important public duties was a Roman Catholic priest, carrying into effect the decisions of the Court of Rome upon the 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 we may say that he hAd no spi ritual authority, I cannot think the matterso totally clear and manifest as some hon. gentlemen have chosen to describe it. 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 beam - treble gentleman found fault with the words " temporal and civil" and de clared that he would rather have no such words in the oath. Well, I do not think that these words are essential to the oath. I introduced them - because, being words taken by part of the House of Commons, and considere I as one of the securities of the act of 1829, I thought it might be considered desirable as a security that Roman Catholics should continue to take them. Another geutlemau has spoken of the oblige-- tion of persons who receive a benefice iu this couutry to take the oath of supremacy, and has asked - me whether I would confine this bill to members of Parliament. Well, I was taunted one year by au 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 the object I have in view. I believe I have now gone over the dif ferent parts of the oath, and I have now, therefore, only to add a very few words with respect to the general effect of the bill, by which Jews will be admitted to seats in this house and to offices under the Crown. Now I have no new argument to use upon this subject. But it appears to me that the only argu ment ever used against the proposition is, that they differ widely and entirely from us ou the subject of religion. If the principle that the house wishes to adopt is that penises who differ from us in religious opinions should be excluded from tit a house, they will be quite right in maintaining the pre sent exclusion of the Jews; but when, as in the case of the Roman Catholics, and as in the case of the Protestant dissen ters, you admit that differences and varieties of religious opi nions are not a bar to the performance of legislative and civil functione, I then say that the Jewish body are a body well affected to the Crown—good citizens of the State—and, if elected as members of Parliament, as able to give you advice upon all matters that concern the State as any other subjects other Majesty who might be elected to this house. I call upon you, then, to remove tlee only bar, on the ground of religious opinions, which still remaius. I call upon you to remove it because you must be sensible that it was the influence of the Protestant dissenters in elections that enabled them to estab lish their claim to the abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts ; and that it was the formidable attitude of the Roman Catholics in Ireland which induced you to remove the disabi lities which prevented them sitting in this house or occupying office. If the Jews are 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 1829. I call upon you, therefore, to assent 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 been done to-night on the part of the opposers of this bill, to brand part of our fallow-subjects as unable to take part in the legis lation-of this country. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—I can assure the house that I have uo intention to trespass at any length on their patience, but I hope that they will be so indulgent as to feel that I may have claim to be heard in attempts to express my reasons for the vote I shall give to-night. We have before us, sir, a bill which is to substitute one oath for the various baths that have hitherto been taken by us when we approach the table of this house. In cousidering this bill, a variety of issues have been placed before the house which Were never before mooted when the subject that is mainly in the mind of the noble lord has been before us. It has been said that there are three objects to be attained by this bill. By the omission of certain words at the end of one oath, the Jew is to be admitted into Parlia ment; by the alteration of another oath the views of the Romanising Protestants are to be advanced; by the change and reconstruction of a third oath, the objects of the Roman Catholics themselves are to be. promoted. The house will .see, therefore, that we have to consider three issues, which are in themselves of a different nature. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord has been taunted in the course of this debate' with. having undertaken the Jewish claims in consequence of an accidental political connection. Such a taunt, lam sure, the noble lord will not hear from me. I know well that the noble lord has, during a long and eminent career, consistently connected his name with the advocacy of the principle of religious liberty, and it was, I am sure, in consistency with that principle that he felt it his duty to become the advocate of the Jews to political emancipation. I have myself, on many occasions, supported —at least by my vote—the noble lord in these_ efforts, though on the only occa sion on which I have presumed to offer my opinions to the house, I have claimed for myself another ground for the line which I have taken, and another reason for sympathy in the object which both the noble lord and myself wished to attain. (Hear, hear.) I respect the principle of religious liberty, as every gentleman, no doubt, with more or less qua lification does who sits in this house, but I cannot say that it was on the ground of the principle of religious liberty that, iu obedience to an overwhelming conviction, I felt it my duty to advocate the political emancipation of her Majesty's subjects who profess the Jewish religion. I have always upheld that opinion because I believed that the Jewish race was that to which the human family in general was most indebted—(a laugh)—and when I am told, as I have often been, and as I have heard to-night, that by admitting the Jews into Parlia ment you are endangering the Christian character of this as sembly and of this community, I must say--and I can assure every honourable gentleman that I make the observation with the greatest respect for his opinion —it. does appear to me that it is because we are a Christian assembly, and a Christian community, that the claim of the Jews to enjoy all civil and political privileges is to me irresistible. (Hear, hear.) Sir, when I remember how much we are indebted to that people, of what ineffable blessings they have been the human agents —.when I remember that by their history, their poetry, their law, our lives are instructed, solaced, and regulated—when I recall other eonsideratioas and memories more solemn and reverential, to which I will not further advert, I confess that I cannot as a Christian oppose the claims of those to whom Christianity is so much indebted; If I look to modern his tory and the claims they have on the kindness of the House of Commons, it is my belief that if the Bible had not been translated and printed, there would not have been an English House of Commons at this moment • and I would remind the members who represent Scottish constituencies how much the liberties of Scotland aro indebted to the Jews, and that their freedom is owing to " the sword of the Lord and of Gideon." (Hear.) When I remember these circum stances, I think that the claims of the Jews to political emancipation cannot be, and have not, iu my mind, been met by any argument that has at all influenced my opinion; and there is also another reason why I more particularly wish that the grant of these immunities, by which the English Jews will be put on a level with their fellow-subjects in every respect should not bo denied or delayed. I cannot conceal from my mind that there is no country in which that people have been persecuted which has not suffered, whose energies have not withered, whose political power has not decayed, and where there have not been evident proofs that the divine favour has been withdrawn from that land. (Hear, hear.) I refer now to the cases of Spain and Portugal, as well as to those of Italy and other southern countries. I cannot say that in England au accusation of that kind can be made with any justice' The Jews of this country have not been long settled here, and never were here in great numbers, yet at memorable periods of our history they have been treated by eminent statesmen with great favour. The Lord Pro tector himself was a decided favourer of the Jews—he appre ciated their character and position, and his religious feelings assisted him in that appreciation ; but in more modern times, during the most aristocratic period of our Government, in the middle of the 18th century, under the administration of Pelham, measures were introduced and passed in favour of the Jews, which I think did credit to the discrimination and genuine piety of that eminent statesman. I need not, therefore, say that the noble lord, so far as his persistence in the Course he . has pursued for obtaining the political emancipation of the Jews, would have found in me an humble but faithful supporter ; and when I look at what has been the effect of the efforts already made in their behalf, I can see no grollud why the noble lord should complain of want of success in his exertions. This question of the political emancipation of the Jews, though it may have been formally introduced to the notice of the house more than twenty years ago, has been really and seriously discussed iu Parliament only within the last seven or eight years. And how has it been received ? The noble lord has succeeded ou many oeeasions in carrying the question in this house by a decided majority, whilst ha the other house the measure, if not carried, has at least - been supported by large numbers, and by men ofegreat distinction and weight in the country. The Jewish claims have been received with much more favour than were those of the Roman Catholics, and certainly the agitation iu favour of the'Roman Catholic claims at the end of seven years - did not obtain the success achieved. by the noble lord in the much briefer time in which he has brought the claims of the Jews under the notice of Parliament. If we for a moment leave the sphere of Parliament, and attempt to ascertain the temper of public opinion with regard to their claims and general condi tion, I should say that the opinion of the public out of doors was even more favourable to them, and more progressive, than that of Parliament. No man can pretend that the present position of the Jews in England is for a moment to be com pared with what it was twenty or even ten years ago. They are infinitely more commiserated, the prejudices of which they were victims have rapidly and considerably diminished, the debates of Parliament and the writings of literary men out of the house have thrown much light on a question in no small degree complicated and involved, and it may bo expected that the last relics of ancient antipathies will disappear before the influence of research and the spirit of charity and philosophy, so that I think it no exaggeration to say that there never was a body of men subjected to political disqualifications who, iu so short a time, have influenced public opinion so powerfully in their favour, and made apparently such considerable ad vances towards the object they wished to attain. Feeling, then, that the question was advancing in the most legitimate way, and approaching a satisfactory issue, I did lament that the noble lord should have mixed it up with others which appeared to me greatly to embarrass it and impede the solution he had at heart. We. must remember that the race for whom the noble lord is, we are informed, peculiarly interested, is not a race which cannot afford to wait. They are not a new people who have just got into notice, and who, if you do not recognise their claims, will disappear. They aro an ancient people, a famous people, an enduring people, and a people who in the end have generally attained their objects. (A laugh.) *I hope Parliament may endure for ever, and sometimes I think it will ; but I cannot help remembering that the Jews have out lived Assyrian kings, Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Crews, and Arabian Caliphs, and therefore I think we need not precipi tate their claims, to their ultim ite, prejudice , ajed against public feeling, but that we may freely leave them to their own course, sure that argument and fair discussion will facili tate M, id accomplish it, (Hear, tear, and murmurs.) But let us see what the noble lord has done.. Here is a bill in which the word " Jew" never appears, in which a person not versed in political tactics could not for a moment divine that the object of the noble lord lay concealed. (Hear, hear.) - From the debate of to-eight, we find that the noble ford has made propositions which have excited great controvesy and very acrimonious feeling. Deeply anxious as lam to advance the cause of the Jews, I want to know why the noble lord has prejudiced, their cause' by mixing up with it other matters which must appear to the people of this country of infinitely greater importance, and are attended with far greater po litical difficulties.. (Hear, hoar, hear.) I deeply regret the course he_ has thought 'proper to take. I am afraid that ho has thrown back that cause. I cannot think the noble lord has taken a course of which I entirely approve ' • but I felt he had very great difficulties to deal with, and that it was not .for me to cavil with him, considering the great purpose he had in view. (Hear, hear) I would rather that the noble lord from the first had made a plain, straightfor ward appeal for the object which he wished to attain. I could not have expected from the noble lord that he would have made that appeal on the ground which would have in fluenced me in the vote I should give on this question. I would rather from the first that the noble lord had, on a con sideration of the great principle of religious liberty, which he represents, recommended the repeal of Jewish disqualifi cations, thanthat he should have attempted that repeal by proposing the_ ()Mission of a few words at the end of an oath. What are these words, "On the true faith of a Chris tian ?" In my mind, additional odium has been created against the Jews by their cause being associat e d w ith thi s matter of . the oaths, and by their introduction i n t o thi s h ouse being sought through the omission of the words in question. I do not see why the words " on the true faith of a tiau" should not be retaiued in every oath. I can conceive no nobler words, nor words which a man coming to the table of this house to be sworn to the performance of his duty as a member of this house could more appropriately use. Why was it necessary to propose the emancipation of the Jews by means of the omission of these words ? On the contrary, if their emancipation had been sought on the broad principle of religious liberty, I think the case would have been much sim plified, and . would have been divested of much unuecessary prejudice. (Cheers.) I was g'ad to find the noble lord speak with more reverence of an oath than has been the fashion of late iu this house lam not suprised at the feeling which would imply that an oath is less binding with us than it would have been with our ancestors, when I remember how much oaths have been multiplied for fiscal and other kindred pur poses. In my mind the sanctity of an oath cannot be more .properly invoked than at the time when a man comes for ward in this house, in the service of his country, and in the face of his Creator vows that he will do his duty to his coun try and his Sovereign (heAr) —and I hope to see the day arrive when, by the free will of Parliament, a Jew will take his seat in this house, and will take it, not by the odious omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," but by the free declaration of a creed of which he ought on every account to be proud. (Hear, hear.) Now, having touched on this subject—the first issue raised by this bill—l now ap proach the two impel-taut ones which are also raised by this bill, and which are raised by tie peculiar pl in which the noble lord has followed. The noble lord—whether it was to attain his purpose with respect to the Jews, or for any other purpose, it is not for me to inquire —has dealt with the great subject of Parliamentary oaths. I must look for a moment to the nature , of those oaths and -to the circumstances and the period at which he proposes this startling change. With regard to the- oath of supremacy I have little to say ; but I would state with - respect to this pr. jected alteration of the oath of supremacy, that I think it unwise and unstatesman like at this moment to propose an alt era ti on o f th a t oa th . It -is very difficult to take up an ancient document of any kind, and, if subjected to the analysis of verbal criticism, not to bo able to make out a case that if it were the oath which you had originally to frame, that that should be the form you would propose. But you are to consider the associations of a country with political oaths. (Hear.) • You must remember that the oath of supremacy in its present form does not merely denote that which its expressions may legally and strictly im port; but is associated in the minds of the people of this coun try with one of those great political facts which they look upon as the fundamental element of their political constitu tion; and the very fact * that Parliament is altering the oath of supremacy when there has been no necessity to moot the point whatever-s:(hear)—is in my mind an indiscreet and an imprudent act. Unquestionably, it will be associated every where with a limited though influential class of the commu nity; who have particularly directed their efforts against the oath of supremacy. I have no particular sympathy with those individuals, but I can conceive nothing more unwise at the pre sent moment than to revive those dissensions that seem some what mitigated and allayed. But all the objections that have been taken to this projected alteration of the oath of supre macy sink into insignificance when compared with the objet-' tion which I have to the alteration of what. is called the Ro man Catholic 'oath. • (Wear.) And I object to that alteration because it appears to me that no course could be pursued by a minister at this moment more calculated to aggravate animosity, or more calculated to revive and strengthen those politico religious dissensions which have been too prevalent in this country, than the course which' the noble lord has recom mended to-night: But, sir, there are other considerations of a graver nature connected with the alteration of these Parlia mentary oaths, and especially the Roman Catholic oath. Now I have a respect, and more than a respect for the Church- of Rome, as I have for all Christain Churches. Popes have always treated the Jews exceedingly ill—(a laugh) --and I believe the present state of their dominions is much to be at tributed to their ill-conduct in that respect. (Laughter.) But sir, I make a great distinction between the Pope and the Papacy. It is worse than' idle to pretend at the present day that the Papacy is a declining institution, or that it is in a state of decrepitude and decay. There is no doubt that the Papacy is one of the greatest inventions of human intellect— (laughter)—and I am not at all prepared to say that at this moment its influence is not as considerable as it has ever been in the history of this world, if you take it in relation to the increase of population, and to circumstances which could not have existed in what are called the darker ages. We have, therefore, to encounter no common power. (Cheers.) It is a vulgar and false idea that would speak of the power of the Papacy with contempt. It is but three or four years ago that on onc'of the most solemn occasions of the meeting ,f the British Parliament the Prime Minister• of this country came down and informed the most crowded house that I aver recollect within these walls, that it was his opinion that there existed, and had' existeel for some time, a vast conspiracy on the part of the Papal influences against the 'Protestant liberties of this country in particular. (Mar, hear, from Lord J. Russell.) Now; the noble lord says " hear, hear," and he nods assent, because, of course, he would not have made a declaration of that kind without due and deep cousideratien. It must have been no common information, and obtained by no common means, and from no limited circle, that could have induced or caused au English Minister, under such cir cumstances, to have made such a declaration. Do you believe, sir, that the Roman Papacy is a power that commences great conspiracies and gives them up ? (Laud cheers.) What right have we to believe that that great power has renounced that object which the noble lord, in his duty to his Sovereign and to his country,' nformed her Parliament that her watch ful Minister had discovered and denounced I Do you think that the Papacy is a power as changeable in its opinions or its policy as an English Minister. (Loud cheers from the Op position.) That was the most important declaration that has been made for a great number of years -- a most imp etant political declaration—and nothing that the noble lord has done or said since, or can do or say, can remove the impres sion of that declaration, not only throughout this country, but throughout Europe. (Hear.) But what is happening at the present moment ? Are the events of the present day not such as to justify the opinion of the noble lord which he communicated to Parliament three or four years ago ? Has the Papacy again become decrepid— -again become weak and contemptible ? Has it renounced its ancient and ener getic ambition, appropriation, aggression, or whatever else you may call it? Has the Papacy, which hag for so long a period enjoyed such supremacy—has it, I say, at the pre sent moment, indicated by its conduct that it has at all re linquished its ancient policy, or renounced it for aught that is new or novel ? Lcok at the position of Sardinia at this moment ! We find there the ambition and the ability of the feudal ages, and the Papacy exercising au authority, influ enced and directed by an intellectual ambition before which everything seems to bow. I am telling yon that you have alarmed the Parliament and the country with these views of the power of the Papacy, that in various parts of Europe you will find its domination increasing in spite of your old system of exclusion and restriction. But I tell you this—and I think I have aright-to say this, even if I were as warm a friend of religious liberty as the noble lord—that this is not the time nor the occasion when you should publicly intimate to the world that you are relaxing the securities you already possess, and weakening the bulwarks that have been built up before you. (Cheers.) The noble lord takes the Roman Catholic oath and analyses it, like an historical grammarian. He says " Here is a reference to historical personages that are de funct ; and there is another passage mere business-like, be cause it is an insult to suppose that an English gentleman re quires an oath to control his conduct." Then hqu tes Lord Halifax, who was a wit, and who said, " What is the use of an oath ?" But Ido not think that wits are the best judges of oaths ; and, with great admiration for Lord Halifax, who was a most charming and brilliant personage, I do not think he was a statesman adapted to the w ants of the present age. (Laughter and cheers.) We look upon this question in a much graver mauner. Here is au English minister proposing to Parliament that England should relax and renounce those se curities which Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington revised at the- time of the Roman Catholic emancipation. What do the noble lord and his colleagues think will be the effect of the news when it reaches the Vatican? They will say, " This is another great surreuder, another great movemeut of this mysterious Oxford party, (elheers and laughter.) It is quite clear," they will say, because they will not examine the question like grammarians or critics, " that the British Parliament has relinquished its Protestant secu rities." (Hear.) But this attempt would be attended with another influence. By adopting this course, you are not only inflaming-and falsely inflaming the passions and pros pects of Rome, but you are exciting the Protestant fears of your own fellow-subjects, (Hear.) You aro exciting as much alarm iu England as you are exciting anticipatory triumph at Rome, and at a moment when you are making tile Papacy believe that they have increased advantages for renewed as saults you are exciting between the Roman Catholics and Pro testants of Great Britain feelings of disgust and dislike from the course which you are pursuing eto conciliate and blend them in unison. (Hear, hear.) The - nouse may not give a membercredit for these wards, and may believe-them to be only phases of debate, but I declare that I never took a course which gave me more pain than that which I take on this occa sion, and which Ffeel it my duty to take. I could have left the house, or I might have said, " lam for the political eman cipation cif the Jews, and indirectly this bill may have that effect, and I am justified so far in supporting it ; while on the other hand, I think, both for the sake of my Roman Catholic as for my Protestant fellow subjects, nothing can be more unwise than the course which the Government are taking with respect to this subject ;" and as I cou'd not con sistently, or with any conscience, support the bi11,,1 might have absented mys If from the house. But I have felt it my duty to be present, and, with the kind indulgence of the house, very imperfectly, at this late hour, -to express my general views on this subject. If the noble lord will retrace his steps, and go on with the subject which I thought he had near to his heart, I shall adopt the course which I have uni formly taken. The noble lord has on previous occasions taunted me with being silent in debate when the question has been before the house ; but as my views were peculiar views on' the question, I had no wish to obtrude them upon the house. I have never been false in those principles. (Loud cheers.) Not lamely in this house, but by other modes, even at great sacrifices, I have endeavoured to advance that which - I believed to be a sacred cause. I trust' the house will not set down to egotism these views and opinions, but as there have been unfair in sinuations of attempted influence on my c?mluct in respect w t to t e h m i s i s u t i b s j c y t a h a t p v p a i r n i o e u s s s t t i o m e a s e t b r y t e h a o n s e truly political say f t r h i e a n t d s a t w h noI time, and under no circumstances, has a single word ever escaped from any gentleman near me which would tend to control or influence my conduct in that respect. (Hear, hear.) They knew from the first, and all must have known it who would have condescended to inquire into my opinions, how profound and fervent were my convictions on this great ques tion. They knew that at all sacrifices I would uphold that cause, and though I deeply regret the course which the noble lord has taken—though I believe it to be one in - vhich ho not only increase the difficulty with which the Jews have to contend, but will create in this country betweeh considerable classes 0 her Majesty's subjecto migundentaaadings which at The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill passed through committee. DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL. Mr. K. SEYMER "moved that the Speaker leave the chair, that the house might go into committee on this bill. Mr. CHRISTOPHER objected to proceeding at so late at an hour (a quarter past one o'clock). Mr. HENLEY moved, as an amendment, that the debate be adjourned. • The house divided, and the numbers were— For the adjournment of the debate y 29 Against Majority for going into committee —4O Mr. CFIRISTOPIIER persisted in his objection to going into committee, and moved that the house do adjourn. Lord P.ALHERSTON suggested tha: the house should go into committee pro forma, so as to establish the bill as an order, as it was obviously impossible to enter on discussion at that hour. Mr. HENLEY said all'they wanted was an opportunity of discussing the bill in committee. They all wanted to make a good bill, and it really was not fair to take a clause or two one night, and another clauss on another night. Mr. K. SEYMBR, wished to feel that some progress had been made. Ho would consent to report progress immedi ately, and fix the bill for Monday, when he would name a day for the discussion. 'Mr: CHRISTOPHER withdrew his amendment, and the house went into committee, but immediately resumed. REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time. PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL. - This bill was read a second time. SHERIFF AND SHERIFF CLERK OF CHANCERY (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read•a-second time. The resolutions agreed to yesterday in committee of ways and means were reporbrd. On the motion of Mr..E WART, a return was ordered from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England, of the grants or reductions respectively allowed by them since the Ist of January, 1853, to the several chapters of England and Wales, wherewith to pay substitutes for performing the additional duties cast upon them by the - suspension of canonries ; and of the names of the persons who, as such substitutes, have received such grants (in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 443, of sess'on 1853). The Exchequer Bonds Bill was brought in and read a first time. The house then adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTRSALL'S-YRsTERDAY : Bath accounts were balanced, an : some progress was made in comparing bets on the Derby. Fresh speculations were productive of some important changes, and in two or three instances, especially with regari to Autocrat and King Tom, the movements were strange and inconsistent. Whilst one party w, s, taking "on the chances" 12 to 1 about King Torn, another 30 to 1 about Autocrat, and another 12 to 1 about the two, 1000 even was betted on Hospodar against the two, and 500 even on the Trapper against the two. Then, after a brief interval, and a little finessing, 6000 to 200 was laid against Autocrat, and almost in the next moment 1000 to 50 taken ; and yet the pencil was scarcely replaced in the pocket when 30 to 1 was again offered in fifties or hundreds. King Toni had certainly the more trustworthy look of the two, but it is for Wednesday next to dispel the mystery in which he and Autocrat are at present involved. Der vish returned to 7 to 2, and was apparently firm at the close. Andover and Hermit a ere backed for a good deal of money, the former at 7 to 1, 13 to 2, and 6 to 1 ; the latter at 10 to 1. Hospodar was in very strong de mand ; 7000 to 420 in one bet, three other bets of 1000 to 60 each, 1400 to 100, 12 to 1 to 2001., and several minor bets were booked about him. Neville was also looking up ; 25 to 1 was taken to 1751. about the Trap per. 5000 to 125 in one bet about Marsyas. 1000 to 20, 1000 to 25, and 1000 to 30 about Alembic. 1000 to 20, and 1000 to 25 about Bracken, and 10,000 to 200 in one bet about Middlesex. The quotations at the close were as follows DERBY. 7to 2 agst Lord Derby's Dervish (taken). 6to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Andover (taken). 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Hermit (taken). 10 to 1 agst Baron Rothschild's King Tom (t). 12 to 1 agst Mr. Clarkson's Neville (taken). 12 to 1 agst Lord Zetland's Hospodar (taken). 25 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's The Trapper (taken). 25 to 1 agst Mr. Morris's Knight of St. George (taken). 30 to 1 agst Mr. Spence's Canute (taken). 30 to 1 agst Mr. R. E. Cooper's Autocrat (taken and offered). 33 to 1 agst Lord Ctifden's Alembic (taken). 1000 to 1 agst Mr. Newland's Bracken (taken). 1000 to 25 agst Mr. F. Knowle's Marsyas (taken) 1000 to 25 agst Mr. Shepherdson's New Warrior (t). 1000 to 20 agst Baron Rothschild's Middlesex (t). 1000 to 20 agst Mr. Copperthwaite's The Early Bird (taken) 1000 to 10 agst Lord Chesterfield's Ostrogoth (t.) 1000 to 10 agst Mr. Howard's Belgrave (taken). 2000 to 20 agst Sir T. Burke's Grey Plover (taken). OAKS. 7to 2 agst Lord Derby's Meteora (4 to 1 also laid). sto 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Ornoo at first 7 to 2 was taken). 7to 1 agst Mr. A. Nichol's Honeysuckle (t). 10 to 1 agst Mr. Batson's Malmsey (taken). 12 to 1 agst Lord Derby's Sortie (taken). SHIPPING INT ELLIGENC CUSTOM-HOUSE, MAY 25. ENTERED INWARDS.—The Golconda, from Calcutta; Victor, Caen ; Lucinda Sears, Jamaica ; Hope, Galatz ; Albert, New York ' • Marianna Bertha, Memel ; Welling ton, Hobart Town ; Maidstone, Sydney; Aberfoyle, Gee long ; Flying Dutchman, Canton ; Swan, Savannah ; Amelia and Laura, Dantzi.: ; May Queen, Portland; Siren, Bahia ;. Wilton, Jamaica ; Josefita, Buenos Ayres ; Albyn, Porto - Rico; RoniaM Emperor, Calcutta. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING. --The Royal George, for Calcutta ; Wellington, Hobart Town ; Laurius Roster, Adelaide; Australia, Port Philip and Sydney ; Alfred the Groat, Bombay ; Lima, Port Phirp; Mehem e t Ali , Bata via, & o , ; J os h ua , Geelong; General Flalkett, Ham burgh ; Belle,' Detnerara ; Sarah, Amsterdam ; Twe Gebroeder, 'Bremen ; Euphrates, San F ranc i sco ; D ' Auvergne, Belize; Industry, Antwerp ; James Moorhouse, Brussels. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO —The Fowler, for Bahia; Camillus, Demerara ; Carleton Herradura Bay ; Nina, Ceylon and Cannanore ; Everdiva Elizabeth, Port Adelaide ; Leda, Trinidad. LIVERPOOL, MAY 25. • The Prineeza, arrived at this port from Uauritius, was struck by a h eav y sea on the 11th March, lat. 35 S., long. 25 E., which filled the decks, and washed into the cabin. Two topmasts; one painted white and the other rough, and a large deck-house painted white, was passed May 16, let. 45 N., long. 29 W., by the Creole, arrived here. . The Confucius, arrived •rom Shanghai, sailed Feb. 2. On the 15th inst., hit. 44 N., long. 28 W., passed a vessel bottom up, from 250 to 300 tons. The Digby Hilton, from Bombay, off Queenstown. [ADVER TISEMENT.I-14OLLOWAY'S PILLS FOR TEE CURE OF LIVER COMPLAINTS, INDIGESTION, AND DISOR DEITED STOMACH,—.Mr. Richard Haynes, of her Majesty's Dockyard at Pl ymout h , f or severa l years h a d no t h a d the:enjoyment of a day's good health, constantly suffering from indigestion and liver complaint. He had the best medical advice from both army and navy surgeons, but the disease yielded not to their treatment, and various other remedies were tried with a like result. At last he began to use Holloway's pills, and this fine medicine h2.s so strength ene d th e t one of his stomach and invigorated his constitution, that lie is mast perfectly cured, and en- joys the best of health. —Sold by , all druggists, and at ProfessOr way's Establishment, 244, Strand London, a time like the present should have certainly been avoided— still it is my conviction, as certain as I am now addressing you, sir, that the time will com) wilco the Jews will receive in this country that full and complete emancipation which the noble lord believes they will receive, because ho has con fidence in the principle of religious liberty. I, too, sir, re spe3t•that principle, but, so far as the Jews are concerned, I have faith in that Almighty Being who has never deserted them.' (Cheers.) Mr. MUNTZ, amid loud loud cries for a division, said that he should vote against' the motion for the second reading of the bill, although he had uniformly voted with the noble lord in his attempts to remove the disabilities from the Jews, and would be always ready' to do so whenever it was attempted in a straightforward manner. (Ile tr ) If the noble lord would bring in a bill to admit the Jews, and frame such au oath for them as should be binding on their conscience, ho should have his most cordial support, but ho could not subscribe to a measure Which, like the present, proposed to alter the oaths agreed to at the settlement of 1.29, and to break the com pact then entered into, which was considered satisfactory by all I:arties. (Rear, hear.) Mr. GOULBURII proceeded, amid renewed cries for a di vision, to state that he was the only member in the house who was a member of the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet in 182 a, and who was a party with the late duke iu framing the oath which now stood in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. When the measure was proposed by the noble duke, it was more ample and freer from restrictions than any which the friends of the Roman Catholics had previously proposed to the house, and all the restrictions previously proposed by Plunket and Grattan were studiously omitted from the bill, the Duke of Wellington being willing—relying upon the good faith and honour of the Roman Catholics—to waive all objec tions felt to their entering the house, so long as they swore to . the form of oath then proposed. From that time to the pre sent, he had, in common with the late Sir Robert Peel, and. with all the members of the Wellington Cabinet, distinctly refused to concur in any measure which should interfere with that great compact which was then entered into. (Hear, hear.), He warned the house, and above all his fellow coun trymen of the Roman Catholic persuasion, to beware how they lent their efforts to the introduction of the first step to wards the violation of, the compact then entered into. (Hear, hear.) Such a emirs would, he thought, tend' to inflame the passions of the people, and possibly endanger the substantial provisi ins of that bill of 1829 which had been found to be so beneficial to the country at large, and produce such an amount of religious discord throughout the country as it would be vain to attempt to repress. (Hear, hear.) Upon these grounds he could not reconcile it to himself to vote for the bill as it now stood (Cheers.) The house then diVided. It is usual for the result of a di vision to be reported by one of the tellers on the winning side. When Sir F Thesiger was observed to take the paper from the hands of the clerk a loud cheer arose from the Oppo sition benches, and was continued for several minutes. The hon. and learned gentleman announced the number as follow : For the second reading Against it Majority —4 This defeat of the Government created an immense excite ment in the house. The delivery, by tho clerk, of the division paper into Vie hands of Sir F. Thesiger, one of the tellers, instead of to Mr. Hayter, was the signal for a burst of cheer ing, which lasted for several minutes After the announce ment of the result, for which Mr. Speaker could scarcely ob tain order, the cheering recommenced, and continued a considerable time. 12d t 17th o month • When any of these late fall o 1 a iunday. the mall, will b . despatchei on the following clay with the exception of the Indi.• 7 4 2 . ; Southampton), and the Malt a . b o th o f w hi ch will be despatched day preceding. rADVERTISEMtNT.]-- EPSOM RACES. Spend* MEN.—Her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent, for vain' 1 able and extraordinary improvements in th e m ost powerful and brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Racecourse Opera, and Perspective Glasses, to know the die tepees of objects viewed through them—of great io 2 ; portance to the army, navy, and others. Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, opticians, 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly Observe—opposite the York Hotel.--These telescopes R' less such extraordinary powers that some, 34 inches, with an extra eye-piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's mO OO4 Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same tele* scope can be seen a person's countenance three miler and a half distant, and an object from 12 to 11 They are of larger and all sizes, with increasing Poo' . accordingly.— The Royal Exhibition, 1851. - Valuable , newly invented, ve r y small, powerful waistcoat-pocke t glass the size of a walnut, by which a person can be set and known 1 mile distant ; they answer every purP°° on the race-course, at the opera-houses, country ec e :., neiy, wad ships are clearly sect . a t 1 2 to 14 miles. M" are invaluable for s h oo ti ng , d eer•stalking, yachting, t, sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Open race-course, camp, and perspe c ti ve g l asses, with wonderw".., power; an object c an b e c l ear l y seen from 10 to 12 raw .. distant. Newly-invented Spectacles ; immediately th O Y are placed before extremely imperfect vision, ever! object becomes clear and distinct; the most aged, of fective eight is b roug ht t o it s youthful, natural, and ginal state. Deafness—New Discovery —The Organic yl; brator, au extraordinary powerful, small, newly-mvenw instrument, for Deafness, entirely different from all other* to surpass anything of the kind that has been, or Pr e ; bably ever can be, p ro d uce d. B e i ng of the sarae colour as the skin, is not perceptibl e ; it ena bl es del. persons to hear distinctly at church and at public I' semblies ; the unpleasant sensation of singing noises. 1 ' the ears is entirely re move d ; an d i t affords all the swot . ance that possibly could b e d es i re d . - 39, Albemarle.etree Piccadilly. 01 - Herve, opposite the York Hotel. [ADVERTISEMENT.)—Dn Barry's Delicious Revalents Arabica Food levet iablyrestores health, without medicine, inconvenience, or expense, as it saves 0 times its cost 10 other remedied. We extract a few ont of 50,000 t e sti' menials of cures, which had resisted all medicines. Cor e No. 180. —" Twenty-five-years' nervousness, constipation , indigestion, and debility, f rom w hi c h I had suffered greay,, misery, and which no medicine could remove or• relieve , have been effectually cured by Du Barry's food in a very short time.—W. B. Reeve, Pool Anthony, Tiv e rton- Cure No. 4,208.—" Ei g ht. years ' dyspepsia, nervousnesSl debility, with cramps, spasms and nausea, have been effectually removed by Du Barry's delicious food in a verl short time.—Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlington RectorlP Norfolk.' Cure No. 1,781—" Not expected to live sit days longer. I was cured by Du Barry's admirable 1 .0 °_,.‘" —Magdalena P urv i s, Moffatt, Scotland." C u re 14 9' 51,416. —" Fift y years ' inde scribable agony from dyspersl°o nervousness, asthma, cough, constip a ti on , fl a t u l e ncy, spasms, sickness at the stomach and vomitings, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Food.—Maria Jolly, Wortham, Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cure No. 3,900. -- " Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and g enero, debility h ave b een remove d b y D u Barry's excellen t Foc d.—James Potter, Athol-street, Perth." Cale No. 81.—" Twenty years' liver complaint, with disorders of the stomach and nerves, have been perfectly cured by Du Barry' s Revalenta Arabica•-' Andrew Frazer, Haddington, East Lothian." " Trevagler; Gulval, near Penzance. Feb. 20th, 185 1.—Eighteen yor e nervous debility, violent palpitation of the heart, throb' bing of the temples, violent pains in the left side and back , shortness of breath, coughs, numbers of the ex t rem ities/ cramps, spasies, flat u l ency, retching, and such ,genera weakness, that I was constantly fearful of falling w hen 0 ° my legs ; all these symptoms have been removed by P e Barry's excellent Food.---Mary Gilbert."—lti canisters, suitably packed for all climates, and with full inst r uctions - llb., 2s. 9d. ; 211,., 45.. 6,1. • 51b., Ils. ; 121 b., Vs• super-refined, 11b., Os. ; 21b., its. ; 51b., 22s ; 101 b., 335. The 101 b. and 121 b., carriage free, on post office order' Barry du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., purveyors to her Majesty, P . cadilly ; also at 68, Cornbill; 60. Gracecharch-street ; 330 and 451, Strand, 63 and 150, Oxford -street ; 66 ' Charing -cross ; 4, Cheapside. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 23d inst., at Tanbridge•welle, th e li on . Mn. V. Cropper. On the 17th inst., at Weymouth, the wife of J° llll Brymer, Esq. Or A DAUGHTER. On the '4th inst., at B oulogne-surater, the Hon. Lsdi Mostyn, of Talacre. On the 23d inst., at Reigate, the wife of E. N. HarPe r ' Esq. MARRIED. On the 24th inst., at Walcot Church, Bath the Re v ' to T. M. R. Barnard, 8.A., of Exeter College,Oxford, a Charlotte, daughter of the late Sir Codrmgton Edionn Carrington, formerly Chief Justice of Ceylon. 1) ED. • On the 21st inst., at Pembroke-place, Dublin, at 1117 advanced age of 93, th o Rev. H. Stewart, D.D., vicar 0 Mothill, in the diocese of Lismore. On the 19th i nst., at Guernsey, Captain Thomas av • mends, R.N., aged 65. On the lid inst., a t th e res i dence of his brother, Vevr" castle-on-Tyne, John Ridley, Esq., of Bedford-place, P' sell-square, London. On the 24th inst., at Bryanston-street, Eliz a beth A- 1 1 138 ' wife of Joseph Humpage, Esq., and daughter of CaP t Warren, late of'the 4th Dragoon Guards. LONDON: Printed and Publi s h e d by MU/'.DO YOU; 2 of No. 112, Strand, Pyintex, 77te ,Sun Office, 1443 %; of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the lay 26, 1,04, COUNTRY MARKETS. DERBY SMITHFIELD —MAY 23. s , There wa s a l ess number of fat beasts to-day, and kil° condition of the animals good, realising an advance in pile, of id per lb. Th e supply of beef large, and of good lity. Several lots remained unsold. Lambs were plot:lb, ful. The re were b ut few fat pigs. The supply of fat a n store calves was less than it has been for several Wo k* fully maintaining former prices. The fallowing were the qu o t a tio ns :—Beef, 7d to /d; muttoa, 7d to 8d ; l am b , Bil to Od ; veal, 64d to 7d I r I lb. ; pigs, 9 s 6d t o 108 Od per score ; rough fat, 6s to Os jA per 1415.; hides, 2id t o 3d per lb ; calf-skins, 3d t o " per lb. • EDINBURGH GRAIN.—Mer 24. Wheat on the top price 6,1 up, and the average is 3d 0: Barley on the t o p i s Od down, and average 8d up. °3"5 on the top is 6d, and the average is 10d up. Beans 02 tha top as last week, and the average 2s 10d up. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 971 qrs sold 720 qrs Barley • 382 qrs so ld 3 0 8 qrs Bar ley 382 qrs sold 625 (Vs Beans 146 qrs sold 49 (1 11 Top of Wheat ........ ..........,........ 654 lb 85 3 61 Barley. , .574 lb 41s 61 Oats Beans 6 6 ,4 ib 54s 01 Average of wheat £3 16 3 11-12ths Ditto of Barley Ditto of Oats , 1 16 10 11-12ths Ditto of Beans BOSTON -MAT 24. Prices :—Wheat, re.l, 68s Od to 81s Od ; white, 80s Od t° 82s Od extra. 81s Od. Barley, 34s 041 to 38s Od, Os 24s to 335. Beans, 478 Od to 53s 041. Peas, 45s Od to 5v per qr. NEWARK—MAY 24. At our Corn-exchange to-day there was a good attend' ance of farmers, who brought a plentiful supply of grsi u of every description. Prices :—Wheat, white, 85s' Od to 87s Ocr;r; g red, 8 05 011 'to 555 qd. Barl e y, malting 36s Od to 38 s Orintlinji OOs Od to 0 - s Od. Oats, old, 344 Od to 38s Od ; new, 32 . 4 01 to 34 s Od. Beans, .51s Od to 66 s Od. Peas, 604 Od to 62s Od. M a lt, 66 s Od to 70s Od. . Tares, 68s Od to 72a Od. SEABORNE MAILS. (N , Ignifles that the maili are sent from the Genera by th? I,lAht—and M by the warning —despatch.) Post-offi ci 1 Day when ma 1. .i From aft, Whet. COUNTRIE2 , . In General Post- Port ett , 18 , °Mee, London.. Imsa..tette.. Enalana• —......-. 0 1 Amerlca(byllrit.pack)N Every Friday .. Liverpool Each .3 1 ° 6r America (by United Sts. packet) ..........N May 2 .......... Liverp oo l May 31 Imerica (by II state; packet) .......... N ...... Southampton, Australia (via South ampton) .......... M May 4 .... . Southampton l June 4 Ditto (via AI luseilles) N May 8 .. Dover .... 'June I Ditto (via Cape of Hood Hope) ...... •• • ...N June 4.. Africa (West Coast) ..Nll3d of the month. Plymouth June 6 A1exandria..........N 1 8, 9, 24, &30 of m D over .... Alexandria ........ ..M 4th & 20th of mou. Southampton Bahamas ..... ......M 17th of the mont. Southampton , i Belgium .. ........ .. N !tally .... ........ D over ...... May I Brazil ..............M 9th of the month., Southampton June 16 Buenos Ayres ........ M 9th of the month .. Southampton May 1 6 Cape of Good Hoge .. N 14th of the moat. Plymouth .. Cape of Good Hope .. N 14th of the month. Southampton Cape de Verds ...... N ,14th of the month Southa m pt on Ceylon (see India) Ceylon ..............N :11th of the month Channel Isles .. .... ..N,Mott ~Wed.,&Fil,l Southampton Tu.TILCIA I ' Chili-- ........... 31'2(1 & 17th of mont Southampton. May 1 China (sea India) Constantinople .... .. N 7,8,17,21,t27 of m. Dover ...... Constantinople ........4th & 20th of mon Southampto • (font. of Europe M & N Twlc, daily ...... Dover ...... Twiced lllll Egypt (sec India) France ...: .... AI & N Twice daily-- Dover ...... Twicedg l i mbraltar ..........M, 1 4, 7, 17, 20, 27 au , Southemp to,. May 6 . Greece (see India) . Greytown .......... M 2nd & 17th of mon. • 4 outhampto May 6 Hamburgh ..........N,Tuesday & Frida‘ London ..... " flavannah .......... +a 2nd of the mon(' Sonthamp•o, June I Holland .... .. .. .. 51 'Jai ly .. .. .. .. .... Dover .. .. I faj 1 v Honduras .......... Al , 1 7th of the month. Soutnampto , May 1 6 India (viaSouthampt.)M 4th & 20th of mon. Plym uth .. Arrived India (via Marseillea)sl Bth&l4tli of mci , lo. Doter ...... lonian Isles (see India) 7, 17, & 27 of mon D0ver...... „ Ireland ........M & N,T w i ee daily .... 1101 3 ! l ead ~ Twjeedai ~ Lisbon.. ............ 111 1 7, 9, 17, & 27 of in. Southampton may 26 Madeira ............Ml9th of the mouth Southamptoh June 16 Madeira ............ Ni23d of month .... Plymouth • Malta (see India) Malta ....... .N 7,17,19,27.30, of m. Dover ...... Mauritius (see India) ' Mauritius ..........N 14th of the month Mexico ............M ,2tl of the month. Southampton June I Naples . • • ....• .. N ,bth I hth2sthofinon over ...... May 2 New Granada ......111 2d & 17th of month Southampton May 1 .. New Zea1and.......... By pri va t e s ki p :. Various p..rt I'ncert4 Papal states ........N ,cthlbth2'.thoftnon. Dover ...... May 2 Peninsula .... " ....M 7thl7tll2Btholinon. Sotithamptoz May 6 Peru ..............M 41 & 2 7th of mon Southampton May 1 Pm Natal .... ..., ..N 14th of the month , Plymout h .. Sicily .... ..........N sth 1 ,th2sthof ruon,lDover ..... . May 2 D Tuscany - .... ....N stl46th2sthoftnoil.ll)over ...... May 9 Venezuela .. ....... M 2e '1 17th of •nonth Southampton May I Van Diemen's Lana (see Australia) .. • . • ... • West Indies .... ~ „Af 2d t 171 h o month Southamnte, sone I !Southampton !June I dJ NA.v Mo The teen d: ~1 1 , 1.1 to 1/.1 L' Wards and c lent of ST of the At t by rota ST til Ord( ttreet, TrltuiP (whiel Ede, T I tents EvAN before Quv. rine, ( Me Publl, Iratid: Mew Me to WI sever end I ) the (2 the 1 , jtbei May. Me Bon t, LO aei May Mt of re! on, a