The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR ilDok his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti-
tion against the Charitable Trusts Bill.
The Earl of HARROWBY presented a petition from
the President of the New Methodist Connexion against

the opening of beer-houses on Sunday ; also a petition
from the county of Stafford against the opening of the
Crystal Palace on Sunday, and the admission of Jews
into Parliament.

CHANCERY SUITORS' FUND.
Lord ST. LEONARDS complained that the time
which was allowed for the commutation of stocks by the
late act was too short, and that the suitors in Chancery
had not had sufficient time to allow them to come to a
determination as to which stock they would choose for
the investment of their funds.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never had
any subject to deal with on which he felt so much re-
sponsibility as this. He had throughout consulted the
broker of the Court of Chancery and the accountant-
general, and the order which he had made would not be
final until Thursday next.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said that there would be a
loss of 10,0001. to those suitors who had not had time
to make up their minds as to the stock which they would

choose.
Lord BROUGHAM again asked the Lord Chief Jus-
tice when it would be convenient for him to attend the
select committee on the consolidation of the criminal
law, because the committee was only waiting for a day
of his attendance to agree upon their report ?
Lord CAMPBELL said he would attend on the first
day on which it would be convenient for his noble and
learned friend, Lord Truro, who was at present absent
from indisposition.
ALTERATION OF OATHS BILL.
Lord LYNDHURST, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said that he found a great extent of misap-
prehension had gone abroad as to the object of this bill,
and he was therefore desirous of explaining its nature
and purpose. The object of the bill was simply this :to
strike out of those oaths which parties were bound to
take, as a qualification for a seat in Parliament, or for
holding certain offices, such parts of those oaths as were
inoperative, idle, and, if he might be permitted to say so,
absurd. (Hear.) It appeared to him that no well-
founded objection could be made to such a coarse of pro-
ceeding. Some friends near him had stated that they
did not understand precisely what the bill meant. He
would state its meaning in a few words, and with as
much plainness and simplicity as he could. The oaths
required to be taken for sitting in Parliament were in
number three : first, the oath of allegiance ; secondly,
that of supremacy; and, lastly, the oath of abjuration.
As to the oath of allegiance, nothing could be more plain
than the language of that oath : it was coeval with the
common law of this country; and Lord Hale, in speaking
of this oath, had said, " Herein is observable the pru-
dence of the common law—it is short, plain, and not en-
tangled with declarations." Its meaning he also thought
was short and plain, and embraced the whole duty of the
subject to the sovereign; and he had no wish to alter the
terms of that oath. With respect to the second—the
oath of supremacy—that oath owed its origin to the
reign of Elizabeth—it was dated from the first year of
that reign, and it underwent no alteration until the first
year of William 111. It was then altered, and had con-
tinued down to the present time in the form in which we
now found it. That oath was directed against the Ro-
man Catholics, which was obvious from the time when
it was originally framed ; and from the clauses of the
statute it was impossible to doubt that the legislature,in
passing that act, had the Roman Catholics solely in view.
But more than that, it was clear from the contents of the
oath itself. It consisted of only two provisions : in the
first the party is made to declare that he abhors and ab-
jures as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine of
Popish error that a prince, excommunicated and deprived
by the Pope, by the authority of the see of Rome, may
be deposed or murdered by his subjects, or any other
person whatever. Such were the terms of that oath, and
nobody could suppose that any Protestant entertained
such opinions; but it was obvious that such opinions were
imputed to the Roman Catholics, whether truly or not he
did not say. The second clause in that oath was that no
foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate ought to have
any jurisdiction, authority, pre-eminence, or power, ec-
clesiastical or spiritual, in this realm. That was an opi-
nion of the Roman Catholics, and it was their opinion
in this day ; but no Protestant ever entertained such an
opinion. It was obvious, therefore, that that part of
the oath was directed against the Roman Catholics only.
According to the history of the period to which he re-
ferred—according to the language of the act of Parlia-
liament and the provisions of the oath itself—it was not
intended against Protestants, but solely against Roman
Catholics. That being so, how extraordinary it was that
this oath having been abrogated as far as it related to
Roman Catholics—for no Roman Catholic was bound to
take this oath—Protestants alone were required to
take it. So that they were in this singular position,
that an oath which was framed to be applied to Roman
Catholics had been repealed so far as they were con-
cerned, and was kept in force only against persons whom
it was never intended for. But he did not rest the case
here ; he was bound to say that in interpreting the oath
according to the plain ordinary understanding of the
words, it contained that which was untrue. (Hear.)
From the moment the State tolerated the Roman Ca-
tholic religion, they admitted the Pope had spiritual au-
thority in this realm. The spiritual authority of the
Pope was a part of the Roman Catholic religion—it was
blended with it, and could not be separated from it—by
abolishing the oath of supremacy, that authority was
constructively admitted. The oath could not be applied
in its proper terms without qualification ; they were
obliged to resort to that which they reprehended in the
Roman Catholics : they were obliged to qualify the oath
and apply to it a mental reservation when they swore
that no foreign potentate had any authority in this realm.
If they took the oath in consideration, what it meant
was, that there was no spiritual authority that could be
enforced in a court of justice ; or some such words they
were obliged mentally to supply. Every oath ought to
express, in plain and distinct terms, the fact that it im-
plied, without requiring any qualification. (Hear, hear.)
That a foreign prelate— the Pope—had spiritual juris-
diction in this realm, no man who looked to the history
of the last ten years could be ignorant of, and that spi-
ritual authority was of a most stringent character. It
was true that it could not be enforced in a court of jus-
tice ; but it was even more stringent, perhaps, because
the withholding of the rites of the church, which were
considered by Roman Catholics essential to salvation,
would have a greater influence on them than the sen-
tence of any civil tribunal. They had proof that not
only was spiritual authority exercised, but it was exer-
cised in such a manner as to trench very much on the
temporal power of the constituted authorities in this
country. (Hear, hear.) Circumstances which had oc-
curred recently in England, but more especially in Ire-
land—he referred to what was called the case of the
godless colleges—were instances of how this spiritual
sought to encroach on the temporal authority. (Hear, '
hear.) Now, having stated so much, he might be
allowed to say that the arguments which might now be
urged against the oath did not apply to its original in-
stitution. At that time the Roman Catholic religion
was not tolerated ; attempts were made to eradicate it
from the soil by stringent and severe penalties. No
person was allowed to say mass, while every person
was bound to attend divine service in his parish church,
and at least during the reading of the Liturgy, while at
the same time no communication whatever was allowed
to be held with the Pope or Court of Rome. At that
time it might be said that no person could assist at the
rites of the Roman Catholic Church, except in the
strictest secrecy and privacy, and in a manner which
Iwtasmni
goht
trecognisablea
ibdy
at
th et
hgovernment of
that
the
the country.
Pope
of
Rome had no authority in this country, a fact which he
mentioned to show that at the time the oath was origi-
nally framed the objections now urged against it could
not be held to apply. (Hear.) But passing that over,
he relied in support of the application he made for the
abrogation of that oath, on its being inapplicable, idle,
and inoperative. (Hear, hear.) It was idle in as far as
Protestants were concerned, and therefore should not be
persisted in. (Hear, hear.) He had great confidence
in the wisdom and judgment of the right rev. bench,
for whom he entertained the highest respect, that they
would assist him in abolishing the practice of calling on
the Almighty to witness an idle and useless formula,
which, in his opinion, was unchristian, and at variance
with the language of Scripture. If they would pardon
im such an allusion—
Nee Dens intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus

was not a maxium for poetry alone, but intended also to
matters entitled to religious sanction. (Hear, hear.)
These observations applied to the oath of supremacy,
sufficient teoooseaetrhisfeydt,htehier
d
laiaHe trusted their lordships would bear wth hm patiently,
rtddhsi leoi Pu
tsghhtoht uangt h,o
tl
loohnfoagrehraa to Protestantso
n th e statute book.
i i
forsufficientea;
efohrotwhetotatshke hoaethhad
undertaken. of
harydl
cheers.) He
abjuration—the oath that was notoriously framed on the
his
strength was
(Loud
model of the oath of allegiance passed in the third year of
James 1., after the discovery of the gunpowder plot, and
the trial and conviction of the conspirators. That oath of
abjuration bore date in the thirteenth year of the reign of
William 111., and the occasion of its passing was stated
in the preamble of the act ; namely, the proclamation
of James 111. by the King of France being the pro
clamation of the Pretender as King of England. That
oath related merely to the Pretender, and attested that
he had no right or title to the throne of England, at the
same time adjuring all allegiance and obedience to him.
Such were the terms of the oath of abjuration stated
rather shortly, and that oath was altered from time to
tune in point of form, as change of circumstances might
call for alteration. It was altered on the accession of
Anne, and also on the union with Scotland. It was
afterwards altered on the accession of George I. ; and,
lastly, after the death of the old Pretender, it was
altered in the reign of George 111., adapted to the new
state of things, and applied to the descendants of the
Pretender. Their lordships would see, then, that this
oath was altered from time to time to, adapt it to the
state of the facts, and it was reasonable to suppose that,
when the whole case of the Pretender was at an end,
and, following the previous precedents, it would have
died out and terminated altogether. (Hear hear.) To
take it at the present day when there was no Pretender
to adjure, nor one of his descendants in existence, was
an idle mockery, an obvious absurdity. (Loud cheers.)
If any person were voluntarily to enter a grave assem-
bly, and say, " I do sincerely in my conscience, before
God and the world, declare that no descendants of the
late Pretender"—there being no such known in exist-