The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-08 00:00:00

HAMILTON SEYMOUR and of General DE CASTEL-
BAJAC from their diplomatic position at the Im-
perial Court of St. Petersburg.

Simultaneously, moreover, with these movements
on the part of the ordinary representatives of the
three Sovereigns—NAPOLEON, VICTORIA, and
NICHOLAS—vie observe evidence of the complete
failure of the designs attempted to be forced by
the CZAR upon the chief Germanic Councils of
Potsdam and Schoennbrunn. It appears, no
doubt, that neither Prussia nor Austria
are prepared to take an active part
with France and England in the struggle
about to commence with Russia, in vindication of
the cause of Turkish independence. But at the
worst the two principal Powers of the Confedera-
tion appear to be resolved, at all hazard, to reject
the notion of abetting the CzAR, directly or in-
directly, iu the pursuance of his aggressions, and
in the development of his designs upon the pos-
sible seizure of Constantinople. Pre-occupied by
their paramount interest in the phases of this vari-
able difficulty—a difficulty involving the probabi-
lities of a terrible conflict between the chief of
the great races of the European portion of Chris-
tendom, in championship on the one side of Bar-
barism, and on the other of Civilisation—the
people of England have literally at this moment
neither leisure nor inclination to attend otherwise
than cursorily to any extraneous matters, whether
those latter claim their regard either within or
without the walls of the Imperial Parliament.

" But here the constable interposed with the
constitutional principle, Words be blowed,' ob-
serving that words were but spoon meat for babes
and sucklings, and that oaths were the food for
strong men 1" There are many persons deeply
impressed with that feeling, on whom the mantle
of the constitutional constable appears to have
descended with double power. These men appa-
rently think the appeal to the DEITY on every tri-
vial occasion is one of the chief safeguards of the
nation, the great palladium of British freedom. No
opportunity for enforcing new obligations should
be neglected—no matter how frequently they had
previously been swallowed ; the oaths of allegiance,
supremacy, and abjuration should be gulped down
on every accession to office, or acceptance of a
trust conferred by an independent constituency.
And yet the Legislature must have considered
such political swearing of but slight efficacy. It
must have supposed that the effect was speedily
obliterated from thy frequent, aud, we cannot help
thinking, " vain" repetitions which it enforced. If
" familiarity breeds contempt," what must be the
feeling of those who have passed through the
same formula at least a dozen times during their
lives. It seems to us to be directly opposed to
Scripture to enforce these constantly recurring,
although useless, appeals to the DEITY. We can-
not see how th y can be reconciled with the First
Commandment, and even a Pagan writer has
strongly condemned the practice, laying down as
an inviolable rule—

" A cc Deus iiitersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus."

Why, we ask, is it necessary to swear that we will
"be faithful, and bear true allegiance to her
Majesty QUEEN VICTORIA ?" Does her title to the
Throne rest on a foundation so slender and so
unsubstantial as to derive additional validity from
the form ? If there were any claimant to the
Sovereignty of these realms—if any man im-
pugned her right, then there might be some plau-
sible pretext for maintaining the form, an unob-
jectionable one, it is true, but perfectly useless!
For w hat can be the necessity or even the use of swear.
ing to that which is a matter of universal assent
against which nobody ventures even to express an
opinion or in4inuate a d iubt. If disaffection and
disloyalty extensively prevailed, then there might
be some reascn for wishing parties appointed to
situations of honour or emolument to take
the oath of allegiance, although even in
such cases, it would be of little value, for
any person capable of plotting against, or
conspiring to dethrone, the SOVEREIGN—in
other words, of being guilty of high treason—
' w, uld scarcely be deterred by the fact that he
had taken once, or even a dozen times, the- oath
of allegiance. Indeed, the more frequently he
had sworn the more slender would be the hold
on his conscience. A man who, while fiscal
oaths were in vogue, once swore against any
improper or illegal act, might have some slight
feeling as to the necessity of its observance ; but
a person to whom it was an every-day form
speedily lost the perception, and totally
disregarded the oath. Indeed we believe that
any person of experience and judgment would
bear willing testimony to the inefficiency and
de•:uoralising tendency of oaths frequently admin-
istered..

But whatever may be thought on the propriety
or expediency of abolishing political swearing
altogether, there can be no real difference of
opinion as to the matters which must be superero-
gatory. What possible benefit can be obtained
from making persons swear against the title of
the descendants of the PRETENDER, when it is
notorious that there are no such persons in
existence. As well might we abjure all allegiance
and obedience to " old King Cole," or any other
mythic personage. It is, to say the best of it,
an idle mockery, an obvious absurdity. At first,
when the teems of the oath were altered to suit
the facts of the case, there might be some slight
foundation on which to " build an argument."
But that is all removed, and the oath of abju-
ration should be numbered with byegone things,
as well as the matters to which it owed its
origin. At present its only effect is to point out
to persons not versed in historical lore that the
title of her MAJESTY'S progenitors to the Throne
of Great Britain was once questioned.
The oath of supremacy is, however, still worse ;
that of abjuration is simply ridiculous ; but the
other is positively wrong—it makes man swear
that which is positively untrue. Can it be
affirmed with any pretensions to accuracy that the
POPE hath no spiritual jurisdiction within these
realms, when we find six or seven millions of our
fellow-subjects acknowledging his authority, when
we see him appointing Bishops, and these Prelates
obeyed by the Roman Catholics of the United
Kingdom—aye, and recognised by the State itself.
Surely, then, it is time to abolish that which
places every Protestant Minister and Member of
either House of Parliament in such a delicate
position, and which may place a dangerous argu-
ment in the mouths of ill-conditioned per-
sons. We say " Protestant" emphatically, fox
the Roman Catholics, against whom the enact-
ment was framed, are exempted, and, much to
their amusement, it is the Protestant members
who are making wry faces at the bitter pill they
are forced to take.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had a very easy task in
pointing out the absurdity and folly of these oaths.
His argument would, however, have been far
stronger had he proposed the total removal
of the grievance, the abatement of the nui-
sance. As it is, he supplies his adversaries
with formidable weapons, showing that his
measure is neither more nor less than the Jewish
Relief Bill in another form—that its entire effi-
cacy, like that of a ladfs epistle, lies in the post-
script,—the omission of the form, "on the true
faith of a Christian." The arguments on this
point have been so frequently urged in our columns
that it would be ridiculous to repeat them. We
do not see that the House of Lords are likely
to change their six times expressed opinion,
and we shouldingeniousregard devicethe presentfer k
valve for letting off the movementsuper-
illing
merely as antime :
a sort of safety
pledges
super-
fluous steam, were it not for the implied
that, if the hereditary legislators continued obdu-
rate, the popular representatives would take the
matter into their own hands, as they ought to
have done long ago. But, when this is the case,
surely it would have been better to have taken
the opinion of the Lords in the first instance,
and to have the many valuable hours that will
probably be wasted in passing the measure
through its Various stag Lord
es 'in the Commons.
JOIRT RUZSZI4s celtiaiUly him laid higaaa open to