The Press.
London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

TUESDAY.

Mr. ROEBUCK—that he should on Tuesday next move the fol-
lowing resolution:—" That in the opinion of this house the
office of Loord•f.ieuteuant of Ireland ought to be abolished, and
a fourth Secretary of State appointed.
Mr. Ew•aar—tuat lie should on Tiiesday week bring under the
consideration of he house the state of the existing foundation
of grammar schools in this country.
Mr. WMATION—that he should on Tuesday fortnight move for
leave to bring in a bill giving a new trial iu criminal cases, and
otherwise to amend the criminal law.

THE KING OF SARDINIA, it is reported, is about to
form a matrimonial alliance with the Princess
Sidonia of Saxony. The journey of the King of
Saxony to Italy is probably connected with that
expected event.
THE INDIA GOVERNMENT AT CALCUTTA have pub•
lished a notification highly complimentary to the
ability shown by Sir James Outram in his conduct
of the recent operations before Mohammerah.
THE \VINE Cnors this year are reported to look
well for a fair average ; but the slit crop is again a
failure. In Southern Europe only two fifths of an
ordinary crop of silk is expected, while in China the
first crop is also a failure. The effect of this will be
serious fcr France, and will, of course, tend materially
to raise the price of silk.

SATURDAY,

THE ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE
OATHS BILL.

A DEPUTATION, comprising Catholic noblemen,
members of Parliament, awll, other influential
gentlemen, waited on Lord Palmerston on Monday
at his private residence, Cambridge•house, Picca-
dilly, for the purpose of urging on his lordship the
propriety of including Catholics in the relief from
the objectionable passages in the oaths now taken
by members of the Legislature. The deputation
was introduced by his Grace the Duke of Norfolk.
After the interview a meeting was held at the
Stafford-street Club, Piccadilly, his Grace the Duke
of Norfolk in the chair, fur" the purpose of adopting
such steps as might be deemed expedient in refe-
rence to the result of the interview with the
Premier." All the members composing the deputa.
Lion were present, with the exception of Sir T.
Burke and the Right Hun. W. Monsell. Several
other gentlemen also attended the meeting.
His Grace the Duke of NoaFoLK, in opening the
proceedings, briefly stated the result of their inter-
view with Lord Palmerston :

He had laid before his lordship the objections which
the Catholic body entertained to being excluded from the
operation of his lordship's bill. In reply to his statement
Lord Palmerston said that he himself did not care to
exclude Catholics, but that he thought including them in
the bill would have the effect of endangering its adoption.
He also considered that there was nothing in the oath at
present required of Catholic members which the strie.est
of that communion could not subscribe to without any
compromise of his reiigiuus principles. He (Lord
Palmerston) was then asked whether he would support
the amendment of which notice had been given, and
though he promised that he would give it his consideration
he would not pledge himself, assigning as a reason that
there were Scotch members, Dissenters and others, who
might be opposed to it, and who, if it were pressed, might
be ieduced to vote against the measure.
The Hon. C. LANGDALE, in moving the first reso-
lution, to the effect that Lord Palmerston's explana-
tion not being satisfactory, an amendment should be
proposed in committee on his bill, said the first
question which they had to discuss was the character
of the noble lord's bill :

Many of its parts were insulting to the Catholics, and
others were an act of inj notice to their body. Would
Lord Falmerston have attempted to act towards any body
of Dissenters in the way that he had done towards them ?
Certainly not, and he would not have dared to offer to
even the most insignificant section of Dissenters the insult
that he had inflicted on that large and intelligent portion
of her Majesty's subjects, the Catholics of the United
Kingdom. By the noble lord's reply that morning it would
appear that the only point they were to eonsid,r, in his
opinion, was the question as to whether or not the bill
would be endangered, but he thought that they had a far
more extensive subject to which they should direct their
attention. He was an advocate for civil and religious liberty,
and would not say anything to the prejudice of the Jews,
but they ( the Catholics) were nut to be made the stepping-
stone to their advancement by not offering any opposition
to the continuance of the obnoxious oath, as far as they
( the Catholics) were concerned, merely to forward the
claims of their Jewish fellow-subjects. Lord Palmerston
said, " If you allow this bill to proceed it will be a step
in advance, and your turn will come next." He believed
that the very reverse would be the case, and if they per-
mitted themselves to be sinv.ed out of the whole commu-
nity, and to be marked by the. imposition of a peculiar
oath, so far from promoting their cause, all their prospects
of success fur the future would be setiously damaged.

Mr. Moons, M.P., said he thought the best course
would be to pledge themselves to support Mr. Deasy
in his amendment now on the books of the house, or
to introduce another embodying the views expressed
by the noble chairman at the deputation that day.
Mr. MAotTinE, NI.P., contended that their mode of
procedure was clear:—
If Lord Palmerston treated the Catholic cause with deri-
sion, endeavoured to make it farcical, and did not go into
the lobby with them on a division, what ought they to do?
If, on the other hand, he acted honestly in respect t 3 Mr.
Deasy's amendment, then they were bound to give him
every consideration. But if he treated them improperly he
(Mr. Maguire) thought they were bound to oppose

After considerable discussion,
Mr. LANGDALE said that the meeting was called to
enable hon. gentlemen to give an expression 01 their
opinion, and he did not think any hon. member
would be hound, in his legislative capacity, by
any resolution to which they might agree that
day. Any resolution of that meeting was the expres.
sion of the opinion of the meeting and of the gentle.
men who composed it. Mr. Langdale then moved
the following amended resolution :

That Lord Palmerston's explanation to the deputation from
this meeting not being considered satisfactory, the meeting re-
commends that en amendment in committee, generally embo-
dying the views submitted to his lordship by his Lime the Duke
of Norfolk, be supported by the Catholic members.

Mr. Moons seconded the resolution, which was
unanimously adopted.
It was then moved by Mr. WAr,us, and seconded
by Mr. Hi:Tom:is, and resolved—

That a petition be drawn up, and clroulated for signature,
embodying the wi,hes of the Catholic community, as expressed
by the Duke of Norfolk in his interview with Lord Palmerston
WI the following geutterueu are requested to draw up tile Po

>~
~,.

JUNE 13, 1857.

tition—viz., his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Langdale, Mr.
Maguire, and Mr. Wallis.
It was then moved by Mr. MoonE, and seconded
by Mr. DANIEL O'CONNELL—

That this meeting stand adjourned until one o'clock of the day
following that on which the House of Commons might come to
a decision on the amendment referred to in the first resolution,
fur the purpose of considering the course which it may become
the duty of the Catholic body to pursue.

The resolution was passed unanimously, and the
meeting separated.
The Catholic petition on the pending Oaths Bill
is worded as follows :
To the Right Hon., cto.,
- '

Your petitioners have seen with regret that in a bill
before your hon. house, entitled "A Bill to Substitute one
form of Oath for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and
Abjuration," while practical relief is afforded by the omis•
sion from the oaths of everything repugnant to their feelings
or conscience, the same relief is withheld from Roman
Catholics.

That the Roman Catholic oath was originally imposed
by a Parliament from which Catholics were excluded, and
that by supporting the present bill Catholic members of
the Legislature would be made parties to the reimposition
of the oath.
That your petitioners desire the alteration of the Catho•
lic oath, because its retention maintains an invidious
tin Alen between them and their fellow-subjects, and
because, among other grave reasons, it leaves them still
exposed to misrepresentations which have notoriously been
made the occasion of offensive imputations ; that your
petitioners, therefore, fervently pray your hou. house to
frame one form of oath for all classes of her Majesty's
subjects without distinction of creed.