The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-02-16 00:00:00

WFDNESDAY.

Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the second reading of
the paths Bill, . . .

Sir F. THESIGER said it was not his intention to op-
pose the second reading of this Bill, which he admitted,
had been brought forward in the fairest manner it pro-
posed to introduce one form of oath to be taken by
Christian members of the Legislature (retaining the
words "on the true faith of a Christian "), and a special
form for Jews. This raised the question, as to the ad-
mission of Jews as it ought to be raised, in a distinct
manner; and, adhering to the principle for which he
had always contended, that the Christian character of
that House ought to be preserved, he could assent to the
second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that in
the Committee he should move the omission of the
clause relating to the Jews.
Mr. FIABBARD objected to certain words in the pro-
posed oath repudiating foreign jurisdiction, which he
said were obnoxious to Roman Catholics, and recom-
mended that they should be expunged.
Mr. NAPIER admitted that the question as to the ad-
mission of Jews was raised by the Bill in the fairest
form.

Mr. AYTON thought it would be better if the words
referred to by Mr. Hassard were excluded from the
oath, which only flattered the prejudices of a bygone
age. . .

Mr. COLLINS and Mr. 13AnwELL likewise objected to
that portion of the oath.
. .

Lod .J. RUSSELL said he could have wished to have
been able to frame an oath that could be taken by both
Roman Catholics and Protestants; but he was obliged to
confine himself to what was practicable. He did not,
however, think that there was any difficulty in a Protes-
tant taking the oath containing the words objected to.
After a few remarks from Mr. MMAFION,
Mr. WALPOLE said he had always been of opinion
that the form of three oaths were cumbrous and entirely
inapplicable to the present time; and if the Bill was
simply to improve it in those particulars there could
be no objection to the alteration. A part of the oath
was objected to, the retention of which, however, he
thought, was not useless. The three oaths embodied
three distinct principles—of allegiance, undivided alle-
giance, and undivided allegiance to a particular form of
succession; and if the form of the oath was altered,
these principles ought to retained in the substituted
form. He denied that it could be affirmed that the
terms in the Oath of Supremacy now objected to were
not true.

Mr. ROEBUCK said, Mr. Walpole had confounded
the Queen of England with the Pope of Rome, who un-
doubtedly had and exercised certain powers, civil and
ecclesiatical, in this country, whereas the oath declared
that he had no jurisdiction, power—a large term—su-
periority, pre-eminence, or authority, spiritual or tempo-
ral, within this realm. Was this true? He denied it.
He then argued at some length in favour of the admis-
sion of the Jews.

Sir. G. GREY thought Lord J. Russell, had exercised
a wise discretion in the form in which he had introduced
this Bill, which was most likely to attain its objects.
Although he did not attach importance to the words in
the oath which had been objected to, he could not as-
sent to the interpretation put upoin then by Mr. Roe-
buck. In taking the oath, he (Sir George) never denied
that the Pope of Rome did exercise a spiritual authority
over Roman Catholics in this county, bet that he either
had, or ought to have, any authority recognized by the
laws of this realm.

Mr. NEWDEGATE replied to Mr. Roebuck, who re-
peadedly denied and repudiated the arguments and doe-
totem imputed to him. _ _

The debate, which became of a dry, dreary character,
and turned principally upon the topics arising out of
the Oath of Supremacy, was continued by Mr. BLAND,
MY. BOWYER, MY. MELLOR, MY. SPOONER, and Mr.
Msoutue.
The Bill was read a second time.

Lady Havelock and Sir Henry Havelock's Annuities
Bill passed through committee.
Mr. NAPIER obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the
amendment of the law relating to Ecclesiastical Resi-
dencies in Ireland; and a Bill for the amendiuent of the
law relating to the Erection and Endowment of
Churches, Chapels, and Perpetual Coracles in Ireland.
The House adjourned at a quarter past 4 o'clock.