The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-05 00:00:00

OATHS.

Mr. W. WYNN rose in pursuance of his notice to move
for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Acts which re-
' (iked the Members of that House to take the oath of
abjuration, as also to take certain oaths at the commence-
ment of every Parliament before the Lord Steward of his
Majesty's Household. It was clear that the oath of abju-
ration was no longer necessary. If he were asked what
harm it could nevertheless do, even granting that oath' to
be unnecessary, to allow it to continue to he taken, he
would answer that any unnecessary and useless oath was
an evil.—(Hear.)—To permit such oaths to be taken
diminished the reverence which aught to be entertained
for the sanction of an oath. He would appeal to those
Hon. Members who were in the habit of attending at
Quarter Sessions, and who observed the manner in which
oaths were frequently gabbled over there, to say whether
such was not the case. By the oath of abjuration, lion.
Members were called upon solemnly to declare that they
did not believe that any of the descendants of a line
which for six and twenty years had been absolutely ex-
tinct, had any right or title to the Crown of this realm !
If it were argued that a new oath might be framer/ in
which this absurdity might be got rid of, he would say
that as far as he was concerned be had no wish to.see
the introduction of any new oaths on the ►ubject. If ever
there was a time at which it would be peculiarly safe
to do away with oaths of this description, it was at
a period when a Monarch was on the Throne whose
claims to the attachment of his people rested so firmly on
popular opinion. The next subject to which he wished to
call the attention of the House was the oaths which every
Member of the House of Commons was bound to take be -4
fore the Lord Steward. The foundation of this usage Was,
that in former days the place of meeting of the House of
Commons formed part of the King's Palace, of which the
Lord Steward was the chief officer. The only course for
its continuance was to prevent Members from voting at
the election of a Speaker, without having previously taken
certain oaths. But really it did not appear to him that
there was any great danger that a Member, who hart- been
duly elected, would attend to vote in the election of a
Speaker, without being prepared to take the usual oaths
subsequently administered in the House. The consequence
of the existing practice was, that great inconvenience had
occasionally arisen from the sudden resignation of a Lord
Steward ; and from his place nut being immediately sup-
plied. In 1641 the House had been obliged to address
the Crown to appoint a Lord Steward ; the office had
been at that time vacant; In 1801 the Lord Steward re-
signed his office, after several Members had been sworn by
the Deputy Steward, and other Members, who in igno-
rance of that event were afterwards sworn by him, were
obliged to have a Bill of Indemnity to shield them from
the consequences of having voted without being duly
sworn. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for
leave to bring iu a Bill to repeal certain Acts requiring
Members of that House to take the Oath of Abjuration,
and directing certain other oaths to be taken before the
Lord Steward or his Deputy.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON entirely concurred in the Right
Hon. Gentleman's proposition ; and could see no reason
why any oath should be required from Members but the
Oath of Allegiance. He begged, however, to call the at •
tention of the Right lion. Baronet opposite to the extra-
ordinary difference between the oaths prescribed to the
Protestant, and the oath prescribed to the Roman Catholic
Member of that House. The latter, which was admirably
framed, was infinitely better than the former were; for in
it the Oaths of Abjuration, Allegiance, and Supremacy
were embodied in a much more intelligible and rational
form than that of the three oaths which the Protestant
Member was obliged to take. The Roman Catholic
Member was exempted from the necessity of swearing that
no Foreign Prince or Prelate had any spiritual jurisdic-
tion in this realm. Now to him it appeared most extra-
ordinary that the Protestant Member who never could be
supposed to believe that any Foreign Prince or Prelate had
any spiritual jurisdiction in this realm, was called upon to
negative such a supposition on oath ; from which nega-
tive the Roman Catholic Member, who of course did eo.l
tertain such abelief, was not called upon so to negative, He I
hoped that means would be taken to simplify the existing
oaths; if not to abolish the only oath which appeared to
him to be necessary—the Oath of Allegiance.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the motion, and recom-
mended the abolition rather than the alteration of the oaths
in question. There was no country in the world in which
so many oaths were required ; and it was unquestionably
desirable to dispense with as many of them as possible.--
With respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Mernber
for Kirkcudbright, it should be considered that it was
consistent with the belief of a Protestant Member to swear
that the Pope neither had nor ought to have any spiritual
jurisdiction in this realm. But the Roman Catholic Mems
ber could not be required to swear that. It was most
desirable to adopt some means by which so solemn a
sanction for the security of life and property as an oath,
should have the respect paid to it which was its due.—
If, however, the lower classes saw the subject treated with
indifference by the higher, the effect would be most inju-
rious. He would appeal to the moral !hid religions feeling
of every man in the House if such was not the case.
Lord NUGENT expressed his earnest hope that as soon
as circumstances would permit evety civil distinction would
he abolished. So long, however, as the Protestant and
the Itonean Catholic Members were called upon to lake
different oaths at the tattle of the House, all had not been
done to facilitate se desirable an object as might be done.
Ile confessed, however, that he agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Waterford, that there were higher
and deeper reasons for acquiescing in the proposed mea-
sure. Ile did not know what sacrifice he would not
cheerfully make, to abolish one of those impious appeals to
the Almighty which were now so frequent. Every moral
and religious consideration required that the number of
oaths should be reduced as much as possible. A great many
petitions had been put into his hands on tic I subject. it
had been his intention to bring it under the consideration
of the House ; and he had contemplated showing the
scandalous multiplicity of the oaths taken in this country,
by moving for a Room of the number taken in a certain
period, with reference either to the Customs or to the
Excise. Having some difficulty, however, as to the form
of his motion, he had consulted the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject ; awl, in a few
minutes he was satisfied, that the returns would he so
voluminous and overwhelming, that it would be impossible
to produce them. This very circumstance, however, was
in itself the strongest argument for setting to work with au
honest and firm determination to limit the number of
oaths as much as possible.
Mr. R. PALMER made a few observations which were
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. C. PELHAM, as we understood the Hon. Gen-
tleman, expressed his hope that the Legislature would not
repeal or alter that part of the Abjuration Oath in which
those who took it declared their attachment to our pre-
sent race of Sovereigns, they being descendants of the
Electress Sophia.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, said that he underatoof his Right
Hon. Friend, whose motion was before the House, bad
two objects ; first, to dispense with taking those oaths
',dons the Lore: Steward, which it was afterwards required
should be taken at the table ; secondly, to dispense with
the declaration, that none of the descendants of the person
who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of
King James the Second, had any right to the Crown of
this realm, Ile had bad III) leisure to consider the sub-
ject, but looking at it for the first time, he saw no ob-
jection to allow the Bill to be brought in ; reserving
to himself full liberty to object to it in its progress, if it
should uppear to him to be objectionable. Ile spoke thus
cautiously, because the longer he lived the more convinced
he became of the folly of giving a precipitate assent to
any proposition whirevcr.
.He repeated, therefore, that
if in the progress of the Bill it should appear calculated to
effect anything beyond what his Right Hen. Friend no
doubt contemplated, he reserved to himself the right to
oppose it. To the repeal of that part of the Oath of
Abjuration which disclaimed any adherence to the de-
scendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of
Wales during the life of James the Second, he could see
no objection. The time had arrived when they might very
properly omit the abjuration of what was a mere dream.
But there were other parts of the Oath of Abjuration
which, when it was considered that in strict hereditary
right there might be higher claims to the Crown than those
derived from the Electress Sophia, it might nut be ad-
viseable to dispense with. As to the oaths to be taken be-
fore the ,ord Steward, their object was to prevent Mem-
bers from voting a the election of a Speaker without having
hero previously sworn. /if that should not he considered
objectionable, he did not see why the practice should be
continued.

Mr. FERGESSON wished to ark the Right fion.
Gentlemen, if he did not think the Oath of Allegiance
would he sufficient for all purposes?
Sir It. PEEL observed that the inquiry of the Lion.
Member showed the necessity of the (qualm* wpiel, hd
(Sir R. Peel) had reeounnentled. The effect of cleaning
that tiv Oath of Allegiance was sufficient, would be at
once to decide the queetion agitated Let Session with re-
spect to the admission of ./ewe into the House. If it were
proper that such an adraiitsiott ehouhl take place, the object

ought to be effected by a direct motion, and not by a ride-
wind.

Sir C. WETHERELL observed, that it was a subject
which ought to be very deliberately considered. Various
circumstances ought to enter into that consideration. For
instance, it was stated by Mr. Butler, in his Memoirs, that
the title to. the Crown of England of a collateral branch
of the House of Sardinit, though set aside by the Act of
Settlement, was not totally extinguished, but only dor-
mant. A declaration, therefore of adherence to the Act
of Settlement might he indispensible. The Right Hon.
Baronet, therefore, was quite right in considering the Oath
of AbjuredOn as not merely negativing the title of the de•
scentlants of the Pretender, but as going on to assert and
support the title of the House of Brunswick. He would
not pledge himself 'to the exact course which he might
pursue when the Bill came before the House, but un-
doubtedly there were some expressions in the Oath of Ab-
juration which lie would never consent to omit.
Mr. O'CONNELL was apprehensive that from what
had fallen from the Hon and Learned Gentleman, it
might be supposed that Mr. Butler had a wish to suggest
that there was any better title to the Crown of these
Realms than that which existed in the Reigning Family.
The fact was, that Mr. Butler himself had often sworn,
that none were entitled to the English Throne but the
descendants of the Princess Sophia, being Protestants.
There was no man more loyal than that learned and re-
spectable individual, Mr. Butler.—(Hear.)
Sir C. WETHERELL disclaimed all intention of cast-
ing the slightest imputation on a gentleman whom he so
highly respected as Mr. Butler.
Mr. C. W. WYNN replied, and leave was granted to
bring in the Bill.
Mr. KENNEDY moved for leave to bring iu a Bill to
assimilate the Standing Orders for Scotland with those for
England .—G ran ted.