The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-23 00:00:00

'his day. I Lord Campbell's Speech, Last Evening, on
the Amendment of Oaths.

SHARE

011,DINARY SHARES AND STOUR S.

Ratlwaye.

Paid. Closing Business
Price, I done.

Bir., Wol., and Str. Val.
j Blythe and Tyne.
Bristol and Exeter
Caledonian
Cork anti Bandon
Cornwall
Do A A 1
tes plan).
div
Do. B ' •
been paid to B.
Dublin & Belfast June.
Dun., Perth, & Ab. Juno.
Edinburgh & Glasgow.
Glasg. and S. Western.
Great Eastern, Ord. stk
Ditto A stock
Ditto East Anglian st
GreatNorthof Scotland
Great Northern..
Do A stock
Do B do
!Gt. S. ant W. of Ireland
'Great Western
Do Str Val gua. stock
Lancashin & Yorkshire
London and Blaelcwall
Lon., Bright.,& S. Coast
Lon., Chat., sad Dover
.Lon. & Nor'h Western
Lon. & Scr.th Western
ln.
mlltlaarypn., Sortheta.,n&d
CLainr
ilcos
Do # shares
Metropolitan
Midland
Do
Do =Ling. & Derby
slid. Gt. W. of Ireland
Do. 4 shares
Mid Kent

8 8i
i 81
85 87
117} 1181

85
117/

6 6

40 41
14 15
92i 93i
108 110
52} 63
49 51
20 25

1271 12841
128 130
131 136
101 103
66 CO

Lll} 1114
74i 75i
118 120
43 44
102 1021
105 106
45& Idi

11/ 121
128 128 i
14 lb
97 99

Do Cray Line
North British
Edin., Perth, & Dundee
Nth. Eastern—Berwick
Do, G.N.E. purchase
Do Let&
Do Y ork
Do Car1ia1e.........,
North London
Do New
North Staffordshirel
N. and S. W. Junction
Scottish Central
Scot N. E., Aber. stock

51f 62f
24 25
102/ .103

584 59i
891 901

116 118
11 1
16i 161 i
11f 12
120 122
45f oi
99 101

Do Seot.'Mid. stock
Shrews. and Welehpool
Shropshire Union
South DeTon
,South Eastern

50 62
32 33
911 112
69 71
100 102
7 8
-Si 39i
10 11 u
8 8
153 1564 p
5} 6/
.3 Sip

South Wales
'S. York. and River Dun
6taines, Wok.,an d Wok.
Stockton & Darlington
Do ••• ••
Do New, 1886
Taff Vale.,
Do B
Do C
Ulster

Do
Do
Vale of Neath
Victoria sta. and Pim
Waterford & Kilkeany
West Cornwall
VV. Hartlepool Har.dzß,
West Midland Oxford
Do Newport
Do Hereford

78 82
156 160

28 30

46 47
39 41
103 105

ISSESSIONS.

Paid.
411

100
100
100
100
100
10n

all
100
rioo
100

I 100
100

MEN

Closing
Price.
_
i 9 E 1

109 110
1 lk p
i I i P
5h of
74 8

108 109
Ic9i 110,1
111 1 2
1091 lli4
1 liP
liP
20 21
73 75
57 60
61 65
50 63
43 45
35 87
26 30
23 25
110} 110,
1 2
1 1k;
1081 109 i
It Ilf
9
97 100
89 q 2

1074 4 ; 08P 4
10i, 103
9 101

52 54

3 5
84 86
ill 112
108 109
6 if)
l
1071 ICBlip
105 107

53 21

66; 15;

lu2i 2
103 sfr

128 f

52 i
1021 3

e9l 001

92 11

71:i
39

liminess don•
61 60
109}

109} lot 9i

11
205 i
74i 3i
57
66
50

1108

2
1 ;
10

T SECURITIES.

The following is a fuller report than is given
elsewhere, from our Third Edition of yesterday, of
" the excellent speech delivered last evening, in the
House of Peers, by Lord Campbell :
The NOBLE LORD said that the difficulty of engaging
the attention of the house to the subject of his notice, after
the much more interesting topics they had recently debated,
was so great that nothing but a sense of duty would have
led him for a moment to attempt it. To guard himself in
some degree against the charge of rashness and presump-
tion, he might mention that since the general election of
1847, which had forced the question of the oaths on the
public and on Parliament, his attention had happened to Le
very much directed to it, He should ask the house to read
a bill for the first time, and give, as rapidly as possible, an
explanatory statement of its objects, having no intention or
desire to proceed to any further stage during the session.
The uncertainty of being able at any future time to offer
such an explanation alone induced him now to trespass on
the goodness of their lordships. There were only
three points on which it was essential that
he should gain the concurrence of the house—
first the necessity of revising and amending the arrange-
ment of the oaths formed in 1858, when they were last
, adjusted ; secondly, on the principle which oughtlto govern
such revision and amendment ; thirdly, on the safest and
the most convenient application of the principle. And it
was only on the first of these three points that it was re-
quisite to dwell, not with length, indeed, but with anxiety.
If a clear and obvious case for further legislation was estab-
lished, an imperfect and erroneous scheme would not be re-
ceived with harshness or severity ; if no sufficient reasons
were advanced for agitation of the subject, a bill, however
perfect it might seem in principle and detail, would very
justly be resented by their lordships, inasmuch, as the
great and the established principle of quiete non novere
would then have been improperly departed from. It was
difficult for noble lords to summon the year 1858 to their
memory, intercepted as it was by the size and splendour of
the objects which had since then demanded the attention of
the world. But if we had imagination to revive it, if noble
lords could suddenly transport themselves into its discus-
sions and its conflicts, no argument would be necessary
to show that the conclusion then arrived at on the oaths
was temporary and provisional. What was the arrange-
went? Two Acts of Parliament were carried by Lord J.
Russell and Lord Lucan. The first created a new oath
with a profession of it.,hristianity appended to it. The
second gave both houses of Parliament the discretionary
power to exempt Jewish members (no one else) from mak-
ing the profession appended to that oath, but not to any
other. The arrangement was substantially unchanged,
although two further Acts of Parliament—one in 1859. one
in 1860—had immaterially modified it. How did it arise?
Lord J. Russell carried through the House of Commons a
bill by which Jews would have become admissable to Par-
liament. The House of Lords amended it in such a way
as to exclude them. Much controversy arose between the I
houses, and much excitement in the country. Mr. T.
Duncombe, suddenly relying on a precedent, persuaded the
House of Commons that Baron Rothschild might sit upon
committees without subscribing to the oaths. So great
was the perplexity that a solution then appeared to be es-
sential, no matter how crude, or hurried, or anomalous,
provided it would give at once and for a season to compose
the discord of the legislature. Lord Lyndhurst and Lord
Lucan both came forward with proposals. That of Lord
Lyndhurst was withdrawn, that of Lord Lucan was
amended, and in a great degree transformed at the request
of the noble earl who then led the Government. The bill
wh ch the Commons had sent up and that which their
lordships had originated were at last so interwoven as to be
essential to each other, and in that way reached the statute-
book. He had given the outline of what took place in
1858, in order to explain that the result did not represent
the mind or judgment of any one who took part in the dis-
cussion in Parliament or out of it. It was not the plan of
Lord J. Russell or Lord Lyndhurst, or Lord Lucan, or the
Opposition, or the Government. It was rather a fortuitous
conclusion emerging from a multiplicity of counsellors, an
exuberance of profits,a rivalry of objects,and a chaosW ideas,
and from such elements of birth it was not to be expected
that a sound or final system would present itself. But
what language was employed by those who gave their sanc-
tion to it. It was one of reservation an of protest. Every
one accepted it as a temporary exit from a difficult emer-
gency. Every one condemned it as a lasting settlement of
a long agitated problem. He would not quote the Parlia-
mentary debates, but he would refer to what might he re-
garded in the light of history, the fact, namely, that Lord
Palmerston on one side, Mr. S. Walpole on the other, both
clearly intimated, in assenting to it, that the question could
not be considered as disposed of, and that further legisla-
tion was inevitable. What defects did it contain to bring
about that general conviction of its being inadequate and
temporary? To give a special class exemption from a
statute by resolutions or by standing order, by many
had been deemed unconstitutional, and by all was sail
to be invidious. It was a dispensing power such as the

Crown had not formerly pretended to. The peremptory

power established by Lord Lucan's bill was confined to the
oath established in Lord J. Russell's bill. Lord J. Russell
had declared that that oath contained some things which
ought Lot to be there, or at least ought not to be perpetu-
ated. But in order to correct it Baron Rothschild must be
driven out of Parliament, and all the former agitation
brought again into existence, since the discretionary power
to admit him vanished with that simple oath. $o long as
the scheme of 1858 remained there would always be a dis-
position in the House of Commons to amend it, and bills
might reach the House of Lords which they were not in-

clined to accept. In 1860 this had happened. But far
more grave was the objection that debates in the House of

Commons may occur at any moment on the standing
order by which the Jewish members were admit-
ted. And they inevitably would arise if parties
happened to be evenly divided. For the last 20 years
we had not seen the results of a c ntention between two
parties of equal strength and equal aspiration. Let
anyone recall the close of Sir R. Walpole's Government

about 1740, when the sick and lying were brought down to
the floor of the House of Commons to divide, and ask him-

self whether at such moments no attempt would have been
made to r, scind a standing order which gave half a dozen
votes to one party or the other. Let anyone recall the time
when Mr. Pitt came in a second time about 1805, when, on
the impeachment of Lord Melville, 216 voted for, and 216
against him, and the Speaker took a quarter of an hour to
decide his casting vote and consider whether at the begiL-

ning of the Parliament no attempt would have been made

to rescind a standing order which might give to Opposition

or to Government the triumph each was eagerly pursuing.
Or, if those illustrations were too distant, let anyone recall
the latter years of Lord Melbourne's Government, when
power turned on a majority of two or three, and
ask himself whether, at that time, the standing order
would not have been questioned by whichever
party it might injure. Whenever, therefore, a condition
always possible arose, the whole question would revive
which in 1858 men felt so anxious to get rid of. It would
be admitted on the grounds that the legislation of that year
required to be amended. On what principle, however, was
a juster settlement attainable P Lord Campbell;was anxious
to repudiate the principlewhich belonged to the bill of 1858
when it just left the Commons, and was first presented to
their lordships. A profession of Christianity appended to
the oath clearly had no value unless universal in the obli-
gation to subscribe to it. It could not be a test if those
who disbelieved in Christianity, were exempted from the
action it would have upon them ; nor could it stamp the
character and colour of that faith, upon Parliament, when
only taken by a portion. On the contrary, in such a case
it would exhibit and define the case that Parliament, on
that vital question, was divided. So far from adding a new
sanction to, it disparaged to some extent the daily service by
which, in both Houses, business was preceded—revealing
with the practice and solemnity of the law the fact that a
class of members differed from the faith implied in such a
mode of worship. They were thus naturally led to the
alternative, viz., that the oaths should be so framed as to
be available for all whom the law admitted in Parliament,
if no necessity exist for the exemptions of the privileges by
which an action was enabled to avoid the forms imposed on
the remeinder of the legistaure. Lord Campbell then dis-
cussed the different forms in which that principle was ap-
plicable. The oath of 1829, passed for Roman Catholics.
contained no phrases or positions which could debar the
Protestant or Jewish members from subscribing to it. If
adopted as the single oath religious lines of demarcation
would vanish from the legislature. In the judgment of
Lord Campbell, as expressed in 1868, they ought to do so.
The oath of 1829, however, was modern in its character
—and the value of such forms depended in some degree'on
that duration of ambiguity. The Roman Consul, who
when Corinth fell into his power, and when rare and valu-
able sculpture had to be transmitted to his country, explained
to the contractors for its t assage, that should damage take
place new figures would be rigorously called for, illustrated
the type of intellect which overlooks vital truth—viz., that
no modern form of words can have the solemnity and dignity
of those who have already linked ages, generations, and par-
liaments together. The proposition he had ventured to
embody in the Bill
it was,
had lea
beenving the oath of abjuration in
which the grave to sentenced, to re-enact the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy
to supersede that of 1854
These oaths of allegiance and supremacy were established
again in the Sth
in the first Act of William and Mary;

AA, .111 • V _
Act of William and Mary; again in the Bill of Rights,

meant as an eternal monument of freedom,—were never

altered or disturbed till 1858 , were then altered and dis-
turbed for no purposd except to remove the complication on
Jewish questions which existed. The complication which yet

remains will disappear if we re-enact, them. They are
known to be available for all members of the Legislature,
whether Protestant or Jewish, and Roman Catholics will
still continue to subscribe the oath of 1829. Lord Campbell
then referred to a bill which Lord Lyndhurst had introduced
in 1855 to repeal the oath of abjuration, and which, had it
been carried, would have led to the exact position which his
bill designed to accomplish. Ho had the shelter, therefore,
of that venerable lord, as well as of the Bill of Rights and
the innumerable Parliaments in which the oaths he wished
to re-enact had been accepted. The clauses were so framed

as to supersede the oath of 1858, to revive the oaths he had
referred to, and to maintain in the House of Lords i I- in-

disputable right to determine upon which Testament oaths
should be administered, so that n) Jewish peer could take
hs seat in that house without their formal sanction should
the Crown ever give existence to the question. While,
therefore, the position of the House of Lords would be un-
altered and inviolate, no member of the Jewish faith, without
its fiat could ever mingle in its councils, the difficulties
which will arise from the imperfect system of 1858 would
pass away. No collision on the oaths could take place
between the houses, no debates on the standing order
could arise in the Commons. The anomalous and unbe-
coming demarkation of the Legislature with the opponents
of our faith would be avoided, and the solemnities intended
to be permanent in the bill of rights would be restored.
But, if such a mode of acting does not seem to be desirable,
I appeal to the present, to the late Government, and that
right rev, bench which has so clear a right to influence the
question that they may gradually mature a safer and
happier solution. Two things seem to be indisputable,
that the Legislature of 1858 cannot be accepted as endur-
ing, and that nothing would tend more to the dignity and
credit of the House of Lords, clouded in the eyes of some
by their long, although sincere resistance to the claims of
Baron Rothschild, than that the settlement we still re-
quire should be accomplished by its labour. The noble
lord moved the first reading of a bill to re-enact the oaths
of allegiance and supremacy in place of the oath of 1858.
THE REVIEW AT WOOLWICH.

One of the most brilliant field-days of the season
was held yesterday on Woolwich-common. The
Prince of Wales, Prince Arthur, the Dake of Cam-
bridge, and the general officers of the Horse Guards,
were present, including
Gen. Sir J. Yorke Scarlett,
Gen. Sir It. Airey, Gen. Forster, Gen. Knollys,
Gen. Lugard, &c., and their own personal staff.
Their Royal Highnesses arrived at Woolwich soon
after 10 o'clock, and were received on the Artillery
parade by the Major-General commanding, Sir
Richard Dacres, and the garrison staff, composed of
Major Milward, Brigade-Major ; Major Reilly,
C. 8., Aide-de-Camp; and Capt. Nangle, Deputy
Issistant - Quartermaster- General. There were
also present Major-General Sandham, Lieut.-Go-
vernor of the Military Academy ; Major-Gen.
Stransham, Inspector-Gen. Royal Marines ; Major
Field, Acting-Governor of the General Hospital;
Col. Kennedy, commanding the Royal Artillery
Depot; Col. Ford, commanding Royal Engineers;
Colonel Bingham, Deputy Adjutant-General;
Colonel Campbell, Commandant Royal Marines;
and other officers. The Prince of Wales appeared
in the scarlet uniform of a major-general, Prince
Arthur was dressed in kilts, and the Commander-in-
Chief wore the blue uniform of colonel of the Royal
Artillery. The guard of honour was supplied by
100 men of the Royal Engineers, in command of
Capt. Decie. The troops, numbering over 4,000
men, were drawn up in two lines, stretching from
north to south throughout the common. The front
line consisted of four batteries of the Horse Brigade,
four batteries of 40-pounder heavy guns, and ono
battery of the 9th brigade. The rear-line contained
two batteries of the depot Royal Artillery ; the
Gentlemen Cadets of the Academy, 249 in number;
500 dismounted gunners of the Artillery; tbree
battalions of Royal Marines, numbering 1,000
men ; 200 men of the Ist battalion 60th Rifles ; the
4th battalion Miiitary Train, and one battalion be-
longing to the depot Royal Artillery. The
entire party soon after their arrival 'were
provided with horses and proceeded to an
inspection of the lines, after which they took up
their position at the flagstaff and inspected the
marching past, which was performed with the
most admirable regularity, in close columns, in slow
time, and at a gallop, in which latter the 40-pounder
batteries did not assist,. The field guns, Horse Artil-
lery, and heavy batteries were then posted in vari-
ous positions on the brow of the hill, and the infantry
formed in one continued line. The pickets reserved
to keep the ground were ordered to clear every avail-
able space, and preparation was made for action.
The infantry advanced and commenced file firing
from the right of companies, and the Horse Artil-
lery charged from the right, covered by a body of
skirmishers. The artillery fired independently from
their various positions, representing the attack of
an advancing army at some distance. Having
changed face, the troops again formed line and
opened in columns right in front to unmask batte-
ries, when a most interesting general engagement
commenced, which continued upwards of two hours.
At the conclusion the troops closed up in front and
gave a general salute, after which the Princes and
suite rode forward towards the Military Academy,
whereupon a general rush of the spectators took
place. They gave the Prince a hearty cheer, which
his Royal Highness acknowledged. After inspect-
ing the class-rooms, dining-hall, and other portions
of the Academy, the Royal party proceeded by the
back entrance to the gymnasium, and rode towards
the new Herbert Hospital ; afterwards passing by
the military encampment and the repository they
visited the new garrison church, and dismounted at
the entrance of the mess
quarters, where they hon-
oured Sir R. pacres and the officers of the Royal
Artillery with their presence at luncheon. The
band of the Royal Artillery performed during the
repast, and at half-past two the Royal party re
turned to town.

His Royal Highness and the Princess of Wales
have expressed their intention of witnessing a re-
view of ,the troops at Aldershot on Monday, the
29th inst.