The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 15, 1849.

appetite on that occasion. The pest was gems by ; and an
boa. gentleman was not justified, because he had been
absent from the house sums time, in coming down and
renewing a discussion on the ten millions grant which bad
been disposed of last year. He would remind tre
hoe. somber for Sheffield, who had talked of liking to have
money to drain his own farm, that it was perfectly open to
make application for aloes. as these advances were not con-
fined to Ireland, but were male both in E oglat d and Sco'-
land. (Bear, hear.) It was therefore invidious to hold up
ass country against the other in this respect.

Mr. BARNES wished to ask a question of the right hon.
the !Chancellor of the Exchequer. He diaelaimed anarti-
cipation in the feeling ed reseed by the bon. member for
Shellield, still it could not be doubted that the people of this
country regarded wi.h greet musty than reiterated grants
for Ireland, and would expect their representatives to inquire
when the money was to come from ? It was 'rue this was
nut &grant, but a loan ; bat ready limey most be advanced,
and how was it to be obtained ? He, therefore, wished to
eels when the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to pro-
duce his annual financial statement, which had already
been delayed to a period later than wee usual under the
former government ? At a period, like this, of great agri-
cultural didress, and whe n the blockades of several foreign
ports were injuring the revenue, this question ought to be
answered.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER raid that,
in answer to the question where the money was to come
from, be would remind the hon. gentleman that he had
stated, last session, that expenses had been incurred for the
Hal& war, and other m itten, which had bees defrayed out
of the moseys in the Exchequer, and which it was necessary
to replan. For that purpose, two millions had been bor-
rowed at the elan of last year, sa the balances applied as
above stated were required to meet the demands that would
be made on the exch, quer for drainage and other matters.
This had placed the balances in the exchequer insult • state
that he trusted there would not be the least difficulty in ad-
vancing this money from the consolidated fund, without e
ins on the country to pty a single sixpence out of pocket.
As to the annual financial statement, the usual period for
bringing forward the bulges was by no means past.
He had been azaleas not to make the statement at
an earlier period, and for the reason which the
hon. gentleman had L iven. Had he du* so, he should have
been junified in making the state mint more favourable than
he should do at the present momeat. The blockade of the
northern ports, sad the upended mate of the continent, had
given a considerable cheek to that anticipated improvement
of trade in which the camusereal world had indulged in the
month of January. These elements of uncertainty still pre-
vailing, he bad delayed making the statement; ant he hoped
the house would sllow him some short delay further before
doing so. 01 roam it was d sirable he should niche it with
the greatest possible accuracy ; he proposed to make it as
soon as possible; but, had be made it in February, he should
certainly have led the house into a misappreheneon, not by
any fault of his own, but owing to the filament prospect
having been changed by circumstances over which legislation
could exercise no control.
-•

Mr. ROEBUCK said that certain (Titles's had recently
been accused of "cooking a dividend ; he thought the right
hon. gentleman had been taking a leaf out of their book.
He said the tax-gatherer would not go round in coosequence
of this advance, because he had burrowed the money, and
bad in bend enough for the advance. Bet surely, like an
honest man, he meant to pay his debts. Therefore, every
farthing he had borrowed only went to postpone the pressure ;
and he was in reality, at the present moment, "cooking the
exchequer." (Laughter.)
In answer to Mr. AILLWRIOILT,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
hoped to produce his financial statement within a month.
The bill then paned through committee, the blanks being
filled up with 300.0001. and 200,0001. respectively.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

Oa the motion that the house should go into **amine
on this bill,
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I have a question to put
to the noble lord cop site as to the effect of this bill on the
position of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish reli-
von. I h.d hoped teat it was the intention of ihs govern-
meat to place the Jews on precisely the SIAS footing, with
respect to bete parlament and civil offices, on which all
elegies of her Majesty's subjects, with that single exception,
at present stand. Toe law has provided an oath to be taken
by the Roman catholic which qualifies him to take his seat
in either branch of the lublabre. That same oath, to
which the Roman catholic has so conscientious scruples, and
takes without the slightest difficulty—which was formed
that he might take it without difficulty—gives him, both
with retiree, to civil offices and to parliament, a clear and
unquestionable right, and qualifies him to hold the
office. With respect to the protestant dissenter, and
other classes of her Majesty's subjects dissenting from
,he Church of England, the state of the law I apprehend to
be this. In respect to municipal offices, all parties elected
toany municipal office are enabled to taae and make a cer-
tain declaration, which is a stesstituts for the oath and dents-
ration against tunsubstantittion, and for the necessity which
formerly existed of taking the sacramental test. That same
oath or declaration is taken then, both for parliament and
for civil office; but in the latter declaraion words art in-
serted which make it impossible for the Jew to take that de.
situation. Thous words are, Ido solsmaly and sincerely,
in the present* of God, profess, testify, and, declare, spas
the true faith of a Ccrimati, that I will never exercise say
of the powers which this office may confer upon me, for the
purpose of disturbing or injuring the church as by law esta-
blished." And the dissenter other than a Romeo catholie,
who takes that declaration, is qualified for municipal office,
qualified also fur all other offices, provided he takes
that declaration within six months. If I recollect
right, in the case of municipal office, the declaration
must be made within one month ; in the ease of civil offices
tenerally it must be made within six months. Still, that is
a declaration which the Jew cannot tike. The noble lord
relieves the Jew, so far as pulismeat is concerned ; but if
this bill rinses in its present. form, the Jew will still remain ,
disqualified from holding civil office ; awl a question will also
arise as to municipal i ffice, because, with regard to both,
those words are needed—" I make this declaration open the
true faith of a Christian." Now, there may be a question
whether the passing of the annual Indemnity Act will mot
capacitate the Jaw for holding civil offices ; but I, for one,
wish to sae the situation of the Jew the same as that of all
other dasses—(bear, hear)—and that it should not be noes.
airy for the Jew to bold civil office by the precarious tenure
of an annual Indemnity Act. (Hear, hear.) I think the
manors will be incomplete, unites the Jewish subjects of her
st ars placed, both with regard to civil office and to
parliament, en the footing on which all other subjects
el her Majesty are placed, whether professing the religLon
of the established church or any other. (Rear, hear.) If
the noble lard tells me that the difficul in of dealing with,
Um gneiss are safficieatly great, and that he does not wish
to enelmnem the present measure by increasing those
minis, I ray I am se desirous of attaining that object which
thie measure proposes that I will throw no additional
• in the way. (Rear, hear.) But Ido hope that the
noble lord does not intend to place the Jew on anless fa.
veered oe any less just footing than the rest of her dejesty's
wleede, (Hear, hear.)
Iced J. RUSSELL —The bill which I introduced last
year, as the right hon. gentleman is aware, was a bill which
allowed the Jews to enter parliament, which relieved them
trona the words which they object to in the oath, and like-
wise admitted them to civil offices. That bill was rejected
in the other house of parliament. The bill I have introduesi
this year is a bill partly upon a different subject. It is • bit
applying, as its main object, to a regulation of the oaths to
be tekse by the members of both houses of parliament. It
pervidis for the oath to be taken by all the meaben of the
thumb, and by protestant dissenter, leaving the Roman
tatholic oath as it stands; it likewise provides a declaration
to be taken by the quaker', ani • form of nth or dicier
ties to be taken by the Jews. Ido not think in this bill,
wink relates to a seureu subject, that it would be novenae
to introduce any proviiion for giving the Jews civil cities;
but I consider that it does admit them to the highest
pike of the constitution, namely, the power of sitting in the
two houses of parliament. And I cannot conceive, if this
bill pass, that there will be
the carrying
or objection in
either house of parliament to the of a measure by
which the Jews should enjoy the same privileges as the pro
testant dissenter and the Roman esthetics. I entirely egre
with the right hoc. xentlessan in thinking that they ought
OD have the same privileges—(hear, hear); and I washed to
show that opinion by the bill which I introduced last year
I certainly do not wish to take the bearfit of any hon.
member supposing that I do not intend to carry
into effect the principle of that measure to its fall extent.
or that I do set intend to introduce, soon after this bill shall
have become law, a measure admitting the Jews to civil
offices. (Rear, bear.) Supposing the bill to be carried in
its present shape, the situation of the Jews, for a time, will
he similar to that which, for a long period, was the situation
of the protestant dissenters. They at in this house, by
virtue of the oaths they took, to which they had no objec-
tion; but they could not bold civil offices, except by
virtue of the Act of Indemnity. If this bill pus, there-
fere, the Jew will be from that time in a situation simi-
lar to that of the protestant dissenters. (Hear, hear.)
But entainly my opinion is, that there ought not to be a
disqualification of any kind, and that the Jews soul be
admitted to all civil of in the same way as the dissenters.
With regard to municipal offices, I think that Jews are
entitled, as the law now stands, to fill all those offices,
she-
and
a member of that persussion has filled the office of
riff is the City of London. (Hear.)
Mr. BANKBS said that he had no objection to that part
of the present measare which altered the oaths to be takes
by the members of that house, because, in many respects,
they had become obsolete, and even ludicrous; a., for in-
stance, where they swore that they would no longer support
the claims of ponies who no longer (sided. (Hear, hear.)
But with regard to that part of the bill which
disavowed
ad-
mitted the Jews, and which allowed persons who
the Christian faith, to make laws for the Chrietian church,
he should certainly opens it, and vote for the 'amendment of
the bon. member for Surrey.
Mr. OOULBURN said that by the bill oiled
was taken by
the Roman catholic'. The oath taken by the letter con-
tained a restriction with respect to the disturbance of prc-
pert!. By the present bill, however, the cue wes altered,
fir they did not exact from the Jew the same pledge which
they called on the Roman catholic to make. He should
like to know from the noble lord what was the cure of lise
alteration, as he considered the pledge to he se ',vats in
the one case es in the other.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he stated the reason of the alter&
don when be intreanced the bill.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL mast enter his protest that the
ROOM catholic nretberewere under any pectdiarreshietions.
The house then went into eommittee.
Oa clines 1 being proposed.
Mr. V. SMITH moved the ended= of the fellowieg
wads : e' And SUSI do not believe that the Pope of Rome,

sr any other foreign prints, prelate, person, state, or poten
tate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or eiril jursdie-
Soo, authority, or power, within this "alas and that I
will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of
property within this rot lot as established by the laws ; and I
do make this recognition, declaration, and promise heartily,
willingly, and truly, Spot' the true faith of a Christian."
He could net understand whythese words should be retained
in the protestant oath ; for, with regard to protestant., they
appeared to be altogether superfluous. Then, with regard
to the
b
declarationtheey
lawe. " that I will defend to the utmost of my
power
pow the settlement of property within these realms as esta-
blished something might be said in its
defence a respected the Roman catholic, he did not know
to what It could refer ea regarded the protestant and the Jew.
Then ease the declaration which was to be abolished as far
as the Jews wise concerned, but which was retained as re-
gr.:l4os "fait': ofoth rebel" lande.cil'arelt"leud said by soalmle"bono.ngthene.
fwiloteucarne.daedretainedt that
tissei wordsorder
ad
s" noto;
n butthe
o i Buhr: atch° faith of
a feeling. Christian
H'e.
should be the last person te wish to shock public feeling when
present instance he
thought that that house should rather lead than fol.
low puhlic feeling. The retention of the words "on
the true faith of a Christian," as the law would
stand after the passing of this bill; appeared te
him to be not only unnecessary but improper, because
when there was such a variety of creeds in the house, it ap-
peared to be a mockery to make • declaration on the faith of
a creed. He theught it mach better that one oath and one
affirmation should be taken by all who came to be sworn at
that table.
The motion having been put,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that as the law stood at present,
there were three dames of persons who took different oaths, or
made affinestiou on anteneg into that honer. The proces-
ses generally took the oath of fidelity, the oath of supre-
macy, and the oath of abjuration; there was, however, a
slams of protestaats belonging to the Society of Friends, who
did not take the peat of the oath of abjuration which ended
with the words "on the true faith of • Christian." The
declaration which they made in lieu of the declaration " on
the true faith of • Christian," was signed by two members
of that house ; and it was desirable to remember that,
bleats* an bon. gentleman had declared that the
tensity of the house would be destroyed if that declaration
was not made by all is members. The Roman catholic*
took another oath, is which the words " on the true faith of
a Christian" were not included, but which words were set-
tled by the set of 1829, which passed after a contest of ma-
yoral yeas, and after a dispute as to whether there was any
security by which Roman cathelice could be admitted to le-
gislate for theaafety and welfare of the institutions of this
country. Now these three classes baring bets thus ad-
mitted, and each of them willing to take the several oaths
and declarations which he had mentioned, he now proposed
with regard to protestant' generally there should be a more
simple term of oath, because a great part of the oaths now
taken was evidently inapplicable at the present time, and
bound the members of that house to declare that a number of
?snot a who had no existence whatever, had no right or
title whatsoever to the crown of these realms. (Hear, hear.)
It was obvious that these oaths, being of sawed importance,
ought net to have • great deal of unnecessary declaration".
That being the case, his right hon. friend pops d that they
should have some short declaration by which the Roman
catholic', as well as others, should be admitted. Now, on
this subject he must say that he did not think it would be
seise to disturb • settlement which was made after much
ete.flict and consideration, and which, as he understood, the
Roman catholic* were satisfied with, as being • full and cons
.1-ter admission of their claim to sit in parliament. His
right hon. friend considered that the declaration he pro
posed should not be in the terms which he suggested.
Hie suggestion was word for word, in the terms
recommended, se those which ought to be studied
to all civil officers by the commissioners, Sir B. Ryan,
Mr. !Wilkie, Mr. Richards, Mr. Bellenden Ker. and Mr.
Amos, in the report Jr Lord Lyndhurst, in May, 1845. They
were the words suggested by these gentlemen; men of con-
siderable authority,of great lemming, who had investigated the
whole subjeet of penal disqualifications on account of religion.
Mr. GOULBURN did not consider the explanation of the
noble lord very satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) The oath pro-
posed last session contained the material clauses of the Roman
catholic oath ; and whea asked why those clauses were nit
proposed again, the noble lord replied that he did not consi-
der them uecessary, because, in 1845, a very learned c im-
mission recommended the oath contained in the bill. Why
was not the oath of 1946 introduced in the bill of last year?
(Hear.) The noble lord said the oath now taken was insp.
pheable to the times, and objectionable because persons were
called upon to smear what wee not absolutely necessary for
the object in view. Why, then, was the oath of abjuration
retained as a condition of entering upon public offices ?
Mr. BOUVERIE wished for informetion with regar 1 to
the meaning of the words "the settlement of property
within this reshot as established by the laws." What would
he, ss en individual, he called upon to swear if this oath
were agreed to ? What " settlement" was intended? lie
had the misfortune to be • younger son, and he might,
'heroines, be disposed to alter the law of primogeniture.
(Laughter.)
Lad J. RUSSELL believed that the words were originally
introduced with • view of providing security with respect to
Roman catholic is Ireland. n d with reference to seats in
parliament, bat to certain offices in Ireland which Roman
catholic* were slowed to hold; it being • current accusation
against Roman catholic* at that time that they wished to
disturb the settlement, Lot only of church property but also
of lay property, and to restore it to those by whom it was
held before OM settlement male by law. When Roman
catholic" were admitted into that house it was thought
desirable te take these words fr ens a former oath ; but it was
not intended that there should be a different oath for Irish
members and English members. He thought no person
could have any scruple in declaring teat he would maintain
the settlement of property as established by law. (Hear.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said the noble lord's view of the
Roman catholic oath exactly accorded with his own. He
(Mr. J. O'Connell) had no intention to injure the esrobliehed
church, but the object of doing away with all religious esta-
blishments was • great social one, and what law had
established law might dioeetablish.
Mr. W. J. FOX said men should do something
more than lend a mere Mensal asset to the terms of
an oath; every word of an oath should have a re-
sponse in the heart and sold of him who vowed it, in
immediate relation to the great power to whom the appeal
was made—a distinct appreciation of the obligation under-
taken. (Hear, hem.) That the oath was of twenty years'
sanding afforded no reason against • change, in other re•
spects called for. In the course of those twenty years, how
many measures had changed—bow many men! (Hear.)
Why, then, was change not to take place here ? The utter
diversity of interpretation to which the oath was subjected
is that house was in heel( a sufficient reason why a new oath
should be substituted, simple and straightforward and clear,
about which there could be no two opinions. The maim.
tins Jew, admitted to that house, would come there with a
faith, true in his conscientious acceptation of the term, and
therefore true for al legitimate purposes. It should he the
aim of the house to check rather than to encourage that see-1
tarisn antsgssism which had &beady inflicted such incales-
tibia eaile upon the countey. (Hear, beer.) He shod
give his willing support to the amendment.
Mr. BRIGHT desired to explain his position with regard
to the measure, because be sat in that house as one of perhaps
a small number who believed that the taking oaths at all was
not effectual for any good or useful purpose, and was opposed,
as he undoubtedly considered it to be, to the progress of
that very religion which was brought before the notice of the
I gentlemen who tank seats in that home. But he voted for
the bill on this simple round. It did not ineresse the number
of oaths to be taken ; it did not adopt the principle of oaths
',there the principle did not previously operate; and it would
open the door to a class of our fellow countrymen for whom
he felt great sympathy, and whose full liberty he hoped to
see established as completely as the liberty of the set to
which he himself belonged, and of every other sect established
in this country. (Hear, hear.) There had recently been an
occasion in the house on which Is thought the state of this
question was shown to be absurd and ridiculous. On that
occasion, not long ago, three members of the house stood at
the table on the same evening and at the rune time to make
the declaration or to take the oaths required of them prior to
taking their seats. One of these gentlemen was the hon. mem-
ber for Horsham, a member of the Roman catholic church,
the eel, r two being the members for Leicester, one of whom
belonged to the sect of which he (Mr. Bright) was a mew
bee. The noble lord took the Reiman catholic oath ; the
one member for Leicester took what might be specially li
called the proteetaut oath, the other member for Leicester
took the declaration. He could not exactly ray, at the risir-
ment, how mach it differed from the oath, but it was not en
oath at all. It appeared to him at the time, that, had a
stranger watched the asses taken by those three members
on the suasion, he would have oome to • conclusion entirely
d &rent from that which the actual state of things
in this country justified. He would have suppose!
that • great and bitter antagonism prevailed among
the various classes of the community, and that three of those
clines, represented by the three members, were, by reason
of this bitterness and bolting, called upon to take oath.,
the one as against the other, in order that they might be
bound not to destroy certain institutions which the great
body of the house, and of the country, thought worth pre-
serving. (Hear, hear.) He thought the house would do
wisely to agree to the proposal of the hon. member for
Northampton, on this ground, that it would sleep ify thie
question of oaths extremely, and place all the members of
the house on the same footers, at least, as to taking any oath
at all; and he was prepared to maintainthat every man who,
under our constitution, was elected • member of that house,
had a lair right, on all the principles of that wasn't'•
lion, to enter that house on the same terms and
with the was powers es other members, and was to be con-
sidered fully entitled to exercise his judgment upon, and to
vete upon, any and all subject' that came before him.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that the public respect for
truth would be grisly increased were oaths abolished
altogether, and men taught that the pledge of their
word and their honour laid an obligation epos them
the most impressive that could be imposed. (Hear,
hear) He should ens for the bill as far as it went,
because it admitted the Jews to parliament, and he should
vote forth° amendment of the hon. member for Northampton,
bemuse it simplified the question, and would relieve the
Roman catholic members from the unjust and unpleasant
position in which they now stood in relation to oaths. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said he did not quite uaderstand the ex-
planation which the noble lord had gives about the present
settlement of property part of the oath.
The SOLICITOLORNERAL said the matter was sim-
ply this. A large proportion of our church property formerly
&longed to the Reims catholic church ; and it was a part
of the Romeo SAMNA belief that this property was not legally
'Boasted Issea lb* siarch. It had been, therefore, deemed
expedient Mg MUM. it in the power of any member of par-
llama% to tike advantage ef his position there to seek

an alteration of the present settlement of that property.
He believed this to be a very unnecessary restriction to be
imposed on Roman catholic menthe's. It appeared to him
that these words were introduced origiialiy to guard against
particular opinions of Roman cathilics ; they were intro-
duced afterwards iota the general oath, effecting all persons,
although he believed that the words were not considered of
great importanor, because he did not believe that any per-
son would be desirous of altering the settlement o' ; roperty.
In all these oaths there was etniderable difficulty in ex-
plaining the precise ground on which they were introduced.
Various denominations of Christians were affected by a par-
ticular phrase of expression, the full force of which was not
felt by other classes of Christians.
Mr. DISRAELI did not think that the explanation of the
hon. and learned gentleman was quite satisfac•ry. He bad
attempted to defend a general expression by a particular
application, which, under no circumstances, he thought,
mould be satisfactory to the committee. He apprehended
(he spike under correction) that the first time this phrase
of maintaining the settlement of property in the realm
was introduard was in the first declaration of the Prince of
Orange. There was no doubt to what settiement of property
it referred. It referred, among other settlements of
property, to Woburn Abbey ; and he was sure that although
the noble lard, like the hon. member for Kilm irnosk, was a
younger brother, that was a settlement of properly which the
noble lord did not wish to disturb. (Hear.) At the tame
time he agreed with the hon. member for the University of
Cambridge that nothing was more impolitic than unneces-
sarily disturbing old forms of oaths. S:iU, when they were
called on to pass new forms of oaths, it was their duty strictly
to analyte every expression. He had no doubt what was the
ongin of this expression about maintaining the settlement of
property, and be could easily understand why the expression
was subs. quently adopted in reference to Irish members. It
was an expression ►nerved merely for Roman catholic., and
nothing could be more preposterous than that because gown.-
mutt found in existence an oath which was strictly limited to
ene clan of religionists, they should construct a new oath
and interpose the phrase to which they annexed no definite
idea, and which no gentleman could doubt was intendeel for
a different purpose and for a t.iffereat class. He trusted that
the government would consider this, and abstain from prem-
, big its adoption on the committee.

Mr. WOOD trusted that government would be disposal
seriously to take into consideration the amendment proposed
by the hoe. member for Northampton, for, if there was an
one subject wklekonght to eemMn serene delibtratiots, it
was this question of oaths. They ought to remember that
s
e
ew."
y
as
iont. holdingw
a:
idnt ow
thei
ojyt
euob er injunction
rTint
humwho::::::ei
ess we
fa particular
cs'tt
hohn:frp
Christian
rat
thwt:o eiwtzf passed t
iwahednodatt. b
e_ hbv
admitting
the
mei
ncrhgprotestantl beentahh suspectede
eh wseniiene.
?wn wa
with
he4eop.Mur eo
eiojtfee7dhseuiwilnithrod:st
imposiag upon him a set of weeds which would have no real
meaning that could be definitely attached to them when to
was called on to make a solemn affirmation.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that objections bad been
made to almost all the parts of this oath, and some boo. gen-
tlemen who objected to part of this oath might as well have
objected to taking any oath of allegiance, because, as th.
said, it was not necessary to take an oath as to what parses.
generally believe, and there was little doubt that persons had
no objection to take the oath of allegiance. With respect to
the were& which the right hon gentleman proposed to omit,
he must say that be took the whole words of the oa'h from
the report of the commissioners, thinking it was better to
take the words which had been agreed to by those
learned oommiseioners rather than propo.e words of his own.
He must admit, alter the objections that had been muse,
that he did not think those words with regard to the
Pope of Rome, or, with regard to the settlement of pro-
perty, wets necessary. (Hear, bear.) He we, asked, be
side e, vehetle r he would not leave out these weeds, "and
I do make this recoenition, declaration, and promise
heartily, willingly, and truly, on the true faith of a Chris-
tian." It did not appear to him that the words ought to
be omitted. He knew it was stated by hoe. gentle
man that it was almost a mock. ry to use those
worth., because the words, " on the true faith of a Christian,"
were differently interpreted by &alma t sects of Christians,
It appeared to him that the ouly value of these words was
ihe value which was originally attached to the weeds—vie.,
that they rave a sanction and certain solemnity to the other
word,. H. reckoned that that was the purpose for wh eh
they were originally introduced, and he saw no objection to
retain them for list pitiless.. In the ease of swearing on
the New Testament, it might be said that persona did not
agree as to the interpretation of different texts of Scrip-
ture. and thereine it was not right that persona
of different opinions as to different texts should swear as to
the same text. As to these words, he saw so reason for
emitting them He beli ved that many people thought it
would diminish the sanctity of this oath if them words were
omitted : he therefore could not consent to the mo: is n. lie
should be sati.fied if the committee left out, " I do not believe
that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, person,
prelate, state or potentate, bath or ought to have any Juris-
diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, tale-
eiastical or spiritual, with n this realm."
Mr. WALPOLE conceived teat the objects of imposing
these oaths were three; first of all, to give the religious obi.-
acme of an oath to the essential duties which everybody
was bound to observe, when he swore allegiance to the
Queen. Secandly, to explain and define what was meant be
allegiance ; and thirdly, to give some guarantee to the pro-
testant that the peen 'tent establishment should not be inter-
fered with. With the exception of three words in the oath
now inserted, he should be perfectly willing to assent to the
I oath as pr pined by the noble lord. Those three words were
'temporal or civil." lammuch as there was a spiritual
influence exercised by the Pope, by putting in the words
"temporal or civil" it wierld lead many persons to infer
that they were going to sanction, by the lairlication, en
ecclesiastical au.hority, or jurisdiction other than could be
exercised by the Queen. He therefore thought it unadvisaltle
to insert the words " Temporal or civil "
Sir R. PEEL was glad that the noble lord had consented
to omit the words, " I will defend, to the utmost of my
power, the settlement of property within this realm." He
was glad that the noble bird meant to relieve proteetents
from their operation. He had heard a great many different
histories of their intioduc ion, but he believed they had been
originally inserted under the impose in that it man
earhulies would not *agent to the settlement of property I
in Ireland. In Ireland there was a peculiar form, which
he apprehended ref. reed to the declaration of Charles 11.
in which he gave bt ck to the protestant church possession of
all they had been deprived of, and gave to protestant dee
senten end others a right to the forfeited estates. In 1662
the pediment of Ireland c'.nfirmed the declaration of 1660,
and an act of parliament was pawed confirming the royal
declaration. The effect was that the Itemen catholic/ should
give en assurance that they would acquiesce in the retch+.
meat of property made in 1662. Even in his own time he
recollected that one of the objections urged against Roman
catholic relief was, that they would not ecquiesce in the set-
tlement of 1662 Therefore the words were continued in th.
acts of '93 and '75, and the Roman catholic, readily gave the
assurance. This be believed was the immediate cause of
the introduction of the words into the Roman catholic
oath. lie thought that the noble lord acted wisely in net
altering that oath. They might consider the propriety of
abolishing the oaths altogether, but their present chi et wall
to relieve her Majesty's Jewish gut j,c s of certain dimbilities,
and he would advise the house not to lose sight of the pie- I
deal object in their anxiety about minor matters. It was
well to hear in mind that they had attempted lest year and
kad failed, and therefors it was well to consider that their
main object was the relief of the Jews. He thought that the
noble lord had alto acted wisely in omitting the wt ads, " I
do not believe that the peps or any other foreign prince or 1
potentate bas or ought to have any civil jurisdiction in theme
realms." It was quite obvious that it would be super-
' Inoue to ask the Jew or protestant dissenter to
lake such a declaration. (Hear, hear ) The hone
and
learned gentleman behind him (Mr. Walpole), who never
offered a suggestion, which was not worthy of attentioo,
Forged that they should omit the weeds ' Temporal or
civil," and leave the words in this form " any juris m Con."
He feared that if the words were omitted the conscientiou•
temples might be disturbed. (Hear, hear.) It any altera-
tion was made, he thought it would be better to omit the
words 'legalese. leaking at the circumstances of the
times, and the utter imeresibility there was of any rival
starting up to dispute the title of her Majesty, they wore of
ettle or no importance. But the main object of the bill was
to capacitate the Jew for every civil privilege, and bin earnest
advice to the house was, not to enter into critical disquisitions
of the subject of the oath, but to stick to the great question,
that of opening the constitution to a large and valuable class
of her 31 jetty's subjects. (Cheers )
Mr. J. STUART feared that members did not know the
differeneebetween " temporal and civil." and " spiritual and
eeclesiasticel." lie peinted out this, because in educational
questions they exercised a great influence. A very powerful
spiritual influence was at that moment exercised in educa
tional metters in the United Kingdom. (Hear.) The ques-
tion was, *bettor .he propceed alteration would not mesh
with the common law, which defied the supremacy of the
Pope in all matters spiritual and temporal.
Sir R. PEEL said that the hon. and learned member
laboured under a mimpprehension. He (Sir R. Peel) bad
takzn an oath to the effect that no foreign prince o-
potentate had, or ought to have any jurisdiction, temporal
or Ciiri,, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within these realms
If he omitted the words " ecclesiastical and spiritual," and
inserted the words " temporal and civil," he feared that he
would .ire rise to the presumpion in the minds of those
who might he celled upon to take the oath for the first time,
that there did ex'et on the part of the Pope some sort of et-
c'etiastie 1 or spiritual jurisdiction. (Hear, hear.) There-
fore he would rather that the words were altogether omitted
than that by his silence on the subject he should be supposed
to recognise an authority he had hitherto dented. It was on
this ground that he preferred that the oath should stand as
it was. Far his owe part, he denied that the Pope had any
spiritual or eceleelastical authority, or that he had any de
facto or eceective authority or jurisdiction within these
reams ; or that there was any court of law which
could enforce any such jurisdiction ' • but he did
not deny, if there were persons what believed that
the Pope had such spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdictiou or
authority, that so far as they were conoersed they should
recognise it. It was well known that in former times many
Roman catholies did take the oath of supremacy. but with
the reservation as to the epiritual authority of the Pope.
Stith a recognition of the Pope's authority on the part of
Roman catholic*, he considered to be much the same as that
of a Wesleyan or other dissenting community. In America
those who recognised the spiritual authority of such com-
munity, would be oonseimtiously bound by it; but those
who did rot would not be bound by it, nor would there be
any jurisdiction to enforce it. But for himself, with
to this proposition—denying, as he did, the autherityr2tag
Pops in all matters within this realm—he would prefer to
leave the words as they stood.