The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1854.

I NIPERI

A.IIIENT.

Leasing
Compass,

Nosing Priem
yesterday.

Business
this day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

I,ondon
N. West.
Caledon...

NEW MEMBER.
Mr. A. SMITH took the walls and his seat for Hertford-
shire, in the room of Mr. Halsey deceased.

93 - 93
- 96

PRIVATE BILLS.
The following bills ware read a third time and passed:--
Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds Railway ; Chester, Fara-
don, and Worthenbury Road ; East Lancashire, Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire, and Manchester and Southport
Railways ; Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Junction Rail-
Towy Vale Railway ; Winchester and Peterefield Road ;
Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds Railway.

at.Nrthn.
Oaldonian.

~, se•

D 0.......
Westn
Yk. New.
Berw.
V. 10.1 Md

.•• •••
LOI - 103
50 - 52
25 -26
12 - 13
224 -23 i

- PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented by the Sheriffs of London and
Middlesex at the bar in favour of the Oaths Bill ; by Mr.
MILES from Chew, Magna, and other places in Somerset-
shire, in favour of closing public houses on Sundays ; by
Mr. T. DIINCOMBE from six gentlemen connected with the
commercial trade of t e metropolis complaining that though
they are naturalised British subjects, British passports
do not avail them in travelling in foreign countries ; by
Mr. HEADLAM, from Newcastle-on-Tyne,- against church
rates ; by Sir J. SHELLEY, from the proprietors of Lloyd's
Weekly Newspaper, complaining of the stamp duty ; also a
petition from St. Anne's, Westminster, praying for a bet-
ter water supply to the metropolis; by Mr. Alderman
from certain inhabitants of Manchester, pray
ing for the abolition of church rates.
IRISH WORKHOUSES.

D 0.........
3. Easton
D 0.........

2i - 21

- • ••
89 - 90

54 - .56

Mr. BELLEW asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
whether Government is ready to bring in any 'measure, in
accordance with the prayer of petitions presented to Par-
liament, to enable poor law guardians to consolidate or
very much to diminish the establishments in certain poor
law unions in Ireland, by which gre*ater economy may bo
effected without prejudice to the comfort of the inmates of
said establishments.
Sir J. YOUNG said undoubtedly the workhouse accom-
modation was much more than sufficient there were only
100,010 persons in these workhouses, whereas they were
capable of accommodating 314,030 ; but the Irish unions
being unnsualy large, it would be greatly detrimental to
the poor if any of these workhouses were abolished.
SHIPPING BONDS.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD asked the Secretary of the Trea-
sury whether the commissioners have had under their con-
sideration the advisability of substituting for the numerous
separate bonds now required for the shipping of certain
goods, a single bond from the captain or consignees of each
ship ; and if so, whether he is prepared to state the deci-
sion at which they have arrived.
Mr. WILSON said, such a proposal had been made to
the Treasury, but the Treasury did not think it would be
advisable to" accede to it.
LETTER-CARRIERS.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE inTlired of the hon. Secretary
to the Treasury when they might expect the report of the
commission appointed to inquire into the grievances of the
letter-carriers?
Mr. WILSON said it was a mistake to suppose that the
commission was appointed to inquire into the grievances
of the letter carriers ; it was appointed to inquire into
the whole state of the Post-office establishment,
and the grievances of the letter-carriers had come before
them in an incidental manner. The commission, how-
ever, had prepared their report, and he hoped, he should
be able to present it in a very short time.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.
Mr. WISE asked Lord John Russell, whether there is
any foundation for the report that the Rev. George Raw-
linson and the Rev. Samuel William Wayte have been
recommended to her Majesty's Government, as fit and
proper persons to officiate as the Secretaries of the Oxford
University Commission, should the bill now before the house
be passed into a law ; also, whether, if the appointment of
the Rev. Mr. Rawlinson be contemplated, her Majesty's
Ministers are aware that that gentleman has described the
Reformation as " so-called Reformation," and that a ma-
gazine published at Oxford he alluded to the appointment
of a Parliamentary commission in the following terms,
" We look upon the appointment of a commission as the
very worst calamity that could possibly befall the univer
shies. We can scarcely conceive of an event that would in-
flict greater injury, either upon the universities themselves
or the country at large, than an i nquiry so instituted,
and a reform so conducted. A Parliamentary Commission
for such a purpose would, at all time! and under any cir-
cumstances, be a huge and terrible evil."
Lord J. RUSSELL insisted that the question want be-
yond the limits of inquiry allowed by the rule of the house,
and therefore he declined to answer it.
BANKRUPTCY COMMISSION.
Mr. IDEATING asked Lord John Russell, whether it
was the intention of ter Majesty's Government to intro-
duce any measure, during the present session, founded on
the recent' report of the Bankruptcy Commission.
- Lord•e7. RUSSELL raplied in the negative.
STAMPS ON. FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

ad
id

In reply to Mr. MieSTERMAN,
The CHANCELLPtt of the EXCHEQUER said the
Government saw no reason to recede from their already
expressed intention tnimpose a stamp duty on foreign bills
of exchange.
BUSINESS FOR TO-MORROW.
Mr. DISRAELI asked Lord John Russell what business
he proposed to take to-morrow.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that the Finance Bills, with
the exception of the Excise Duties Bill, would be taken
first, and the Oxford University Bill afterwards:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
BUSINESS.
Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to ask the noble lord when
it would b 3 convenient for him to move the resolution
agreed to by the committee on public business.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that next Thursday would
be a suitable day.
Sir J. PAKINGTON gave notice then that he would
put the resolution on the paper for that day.
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice that he should take the
sense of the house on that resolution, which proposed to
abolish the usual motion made on Fridays, that the house
at its rising should adjourn until the Monday following.
THE OATHS BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Sir F. THESIGER said that when the noble lord, now
more than three months ago, introduced this measure to
the attention of the house, he (Sir F. Thosiger) took the
liberty of observing upon the important principle which it
involved, and he promised that an oppoitunity should be
afforded in this stage for a full discussion. That period
had been long- delsyett, -bute-not by his fault, for the house
would remember that he, over and over again, pressed the
noble lord to fix a day for proceeding with it so much so
as to provoke the mirth of the house, which was always
'so easily disposed to be amused amidst its graver occupa-
tion. The noble lord on one occasion, with a gravity which
was remarkable, appealed to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) know-
le lge of his great anxiety to take a debate on this ques-
tion, and the noble lord appeared to rather expect him to
give an assenting reply. If he might be allowed to ex-
press his own thoughts, they would not be in favour of
that which the noble lord chose to take for granted ; for
he could not get rid of an idea, which might be erroneous,
that the noble lord had no disposition to facilitate the bill
to its present stage, but rather manifested a reluctance to
do so, which was to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind indi.
cativo of misgivings of the prudence of the measure.
If the noble lord was influenced by the state of public
feeling, he was not astonished at the mistrust which
he manifested, for so far as petitions to that ho
iuse
could be considered as an index of the public mnd,
the result was remarkable. They had no doubt
that clay bad, with the usual ceremony, a petition
from the city of London in favour oft the bill. That was to
be anticipated. But up to that clay he returns of the peti-
tions presented were interesting
tions in favour of the and important. The peti-
bill up to yesterdsy were three, with
166 signatures; for an alteration in parliamentary oaths, but
not in favour of this bill, one petition with 69 signatures ;
whereas the petitions against the bill w ere 481, with
60,171 signatures. (Haar, hear.) The more ho reflected
on tho course which the noble lord had adopted on the
present occasion, the more he was astonished at his depar-
ture from all those professions he had recently made in
favour of the Protestant cause and the noble lord's violation
of those measures which he had so strenuously. maintained,
and it was only to him a proof of the determination of the
noble lord to allow nothieg to stand in the way of the
accomplishment of a favourite object. Before he proceeded
to consider the reasons used by the noble lord for this ex-
traordinary measure he must/anticipate an argument which
might be urged in favour of the second reading, and against
which he was anxious to warn hon. members who were
opposed to the principle of the bill. One of the grounds
on which the noble lord rested his case for an alteration of
ortion of them was
parliamentary oaths was, that a P
obsolete, there being no person in existence to whom they
could apply. The noble lord adverted to the oath of
abjuration, and pointed out that we were called on to
abjure the right and title of the descendauts of the
Pretender to the crown of these realms, and that no
one was now in existence to whom that oath extended
who regarded with in-
There might be some members
difference un alteration in the oath of abjuration, and
in this particular would be induced to agree with the
noble lord, and it might be insisted on that, as they who
opposed the bill yet admitted that so era alterangti ionnto com-
in the
oaths was necessary, that was a reason goi
mittee on the bill, and then that those who wore opposed
to it on other grounds would have an opportunity of alter-
ing and modifying it in other respects. He hoped there
was no hon. member opposed to this bill who would be so
incautious as to be caught by that specious argument.
They were at this stage of the measure confessedly dlscus-
sing the principle of the bill. If they consented to go into
committee, they admitted that- they were prepared to
legislate on the principle of there being only one oath,
which necessarily involved the abandonment, or at least a
softening, if he might use the expression, of the supremacy,
and the relinquishment of those securities of the Protestant
religion which were established at the time of the passing
of the Roman Catholic R'- that
Bill. And do the pas
any
hon. member flatter himself that if he abandoned this high
ground, and followed the enemy into a field which they
had chosen, that he would ever be abler course pursue
principles at discretion. (Hear,
than to surrender all his
hear.) The measure which had been proposed by the noble
lord on this occasion manifested his determination to allow
nothing to stand in the way between him and any favourite
object of his wishes ; and it would be useful for them to
consider what it was that led the noble lord originally to
the consideration of the oaths that were taken by members
of Parliament. It was in the recollection of the house that
the noble lord some years ago was returned as there pre-
sentative of the city of London wills Baron Rothschild,
on
a
gentleman of the Jewish persuasion. On that occasi
the noble lord made one of those inconsiderate pledges wile
ith
which he was occasionally apt to embarrass himself.
promised that he would use his earnest and most strenuou3
endeavours to remove the impediments which existed by
law to a Jew being a member of tho Legislature.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The year before.
Sir F. THESIGER continued. The noble lord had cer-
tainly been as good as his word. Session after session had
that house been called upon to discuss this question. With
the exception Of the session 0f,1852, not a session had passed
without the question having been agitated by the noble
lord in some shape or other. In February of that year the
noble lord introduced one of his finality reform bills, in
which he introduced one common form of oath to be taken
by all the members of the house, and which resembled in
many particulars the oath now under the consideration of
the house. In 1853 the noble lord returned to his original
course, and introduced what was familiarly called a Jew
bill. The measure was carried by decreasing majorities
the
in
that house, and defeated- by increasing majorities in
House of Lords ; and the noble lord, not discouraged, but
rather inflamed by the successful opposition, had now
CoU forward with this particular measure. The noie

-- 0

'X BANKS.

10 , all
10 1 all

77 - 79

50 all
25 5
20 2

2 lid

1 -

LOO 25
Loo 20
20 12

"... •••

4i -

20 I 20

201 -- 21

50 2O
50 10
100 20
100 35

20 lO
50 22?
20 all
25 all

45 - 47

25 5
100 25
10 an
5 1

25 all
25 I al,

41 - 43
69 - 71
7 - 8

Pip 10

lord bad shown the resolution 'which he maintained upon
this subject by most extraordinary threats which he had
held out. At the time he introduced this measure he in-
timated pretty plainly that if the law were not altered
according to his wishes, it might be for the house to on
sider whether it would not adopt the course which con
taken upon a previous occasion, and seat Baron Roths-
child by means of a resolution. Now, the noble lord
must wholly have forgotten, or supposed the house had
no recollection of all that had passed previously upon
this subject. In 1850, when the present Vice Chancellor
Wood made a motion on behalf of Baron Rothschild,
that the seat was full, although he had omitted the
words "on the true faith of a Christian," the present
Master of the Rolls, then the Attorney-General of the
noble lord said he was clearly of opinion that the words
were of the substance of the oath, and that no resolution of
the house could enable them to dispense with an act of par-
liament ; and that motion was negatived by a majority of
105. In 1851, the noble lord, adverting to the argument of
his Attorney-General, said it was evidently the intention
of parliament that the words "on the true faith s,f a
Christian". should not be omitted ; and in the year 1851,
in the month of July Mr. Alderman Salomon% having
taken, or attempted to take, his seat without having taken
the oath with those words, the noble lord himself moved
"that David Salornons, Esq., is not entitled to sit in this
house during a debate until he shall take the oath of abju-
ration in the form prescribed by law." And the Attorney-
General upon that occasion said no one who looked at the
history of the period could doubt that the legislature in-
tended that those words should be a substantial part of
the oath. What had induced the noble lord to depart
from the opinions and declarations he on previous occasions
expressed on this subject? Had anything occurred to
shake the noble lord's views on the subject? Why, since
that period, there had been two solemn decisions of the
courts of justice; one of the Court of Exchequer, in which
three barons to ono were of opinion that these or
an wdo
s
were an essential and substantial part of the oath, d n
part of the ceremony of administering the oath ; and that
judgment was confirmed by the unanimous decision of the
Court of Exchequer Chamber, delivered by Lord Camp-
bell. And yet the noble lord was determined to show
that nothing should interfere with the object he had at
heart. Now let him contrast the noble lord of 1851
with the noble lord of 1854. The house would re•
member that in the case of Mr. Pease, a committee was
appointed in the year 1833, and, upon examination of the
acts of Parliament, it was found that they were sufficiently
wide to embrace every case in which an oath was required,
allowing a quaker to take an affirmation, and upon that '
there was a report of the committee to the house, and a
resolution by which Mr. Pease was seated. Now, in 1851,
the noble lord said, " I have been unable to come to the
conclusion, which I would willingly do, that we can act
here as the house did in the case of Mr. Pease, and say
that these words, `on the true faith of a Christian,' may
be omitted." But what did he say in 1854? He said—
" It may be hereafter a question for the house, whether it
would not prefer the course taken in the case of Mr.
Pease, with regard to gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion."
They might gather some instruction from this ominous
hint of the noble lord, and discover what was the real
principle of this bill. It was evident that the noble lord
did not consider any, bill was necessary for the purpose of
allowing a Jew to take his seat in that house. Well, then,
where were they to look for the principle of the bill ? Was
it not evident that the bill was calculated" and intended
solely for the benefit of the Roman Catholics, and of those
members of the Church of England who were restless upon
the question of supremacy, and he could not help seeing in
this measure the desire of the noble lord to retrace his
steps and to atone for the constitutional conduct which he
manifested in 1850 and 1851. Was there nothing in the
altered situation of the noble lord which might account
for this remarkable change ? They must never forget that
the noble lord now sat in a Cabinet, the most distinguished
members of which were among the most determined
opponents of the measures which were introduced by the
noble lord, for the purpose of preventing papal aggres-
sion. In the extraordinary mixture of principles and of
parties, arising no doubt from great self denial and aban-
dement on all sides which had gone to constitute the
Government, they found those,who might still have the
lingering spirit of conservatism sitting side by side
with the bold and boastful assertor of radical principles,
and the self-armed champion of Protestantism united with
the advocates of the full and complete development of the
Roman Catholic Church. In such a combination of cir-
cumstances compromise was inevitable. There must be
some giving way in order that these heterogeneous ele-
ments might continue even for a short time in combina-
tion. Like the Roman triumvirate, which was called by
Ferguson, the historian of the Roman Republic, the
famous coalition, there must be, for the purpose of extin-
;lashing opposition and strengthening of party, the sacri-
fice by each of some of their dearest friends to the antipathy
or resentment of the rest. The noble lord's contribution
to this proscription was the supremacy of the Crown and
the security of the Protestant establishment. He would
call the attention of the house to what was proposed by
the noble lord on the subject of altering the oath in re-
spect of supremacy. The house was aware that Protestant
members were required to take an oath which had been
framed on the model of that which was originally intro-
duced in the first act of supremacy in the time of Eliza-
beth, " that no foreign prince or potentate, hath or ought
to have any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm." Under the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill an oath was framed for the
ease of the consciences of Roman Catholics, by which they
were merely required to declare that they did not believe
that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince,
state, or potentate has or ought to have any temporal, or
civil jurisdiction, authority, or pro-eminence, directly or
indirectly, in this realm. He was not aware that the nines
of his Protestant fellow subjects had over denied the eccle-
siastical and spiritual supremacy of the Crown, and there-
fore he was not aware that any particular relief on this
subject was required by them, but he found that the noble
lord in providing an oath to be taken by all the members
of the house necessarily proposed to get rid of the words
"ecclesiastical" and "spiritual," and merely to require an
oath that they did not believe that the Pope of Rome and
so on, had, or ought to have any temporal or civil juris-
diction or power. Now, if the question were between ab-
solute silence on the subject of the supremacy, and this
maimed and mutilated recognition of it he should infinitely
prefer the former, end he was fortified in that opinion by
the authority of Sir Robert Peel, who in 1819, said if they
were to insert the words "temporal" and "civil," that
would give rise to the presumption that they recognised
the existence on the part of the Popo of a spiritual and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It was most lamentable that
the noble lord had deserted the ground which ho so ably
defended in 1850 and 1851, for what was it that was most
remarkable in the memorable letter of the noble lord to
the Bishop of Durham, was it not the vigour and the
manliness with which he maintained the supremacy of the
Crown against the Roman Ciit, holies mn-tragairtst thole
members of our Church who were disposed to question it?
And the house would remember -that upon the debate
which took place on the introduction of the Eccle-
siastical Titles Bill, the noble lord, adverting to
the arrogant tone of some of the documents which
emanated from Rome, and which were excused on
the ground that it was the, ordinary form of those docu-
ments, the house would remember how it was electri-
fied by the declaration which the noble lord emphatically
uttered, " I am accustomed to another form, ' Victoria, by
the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and Defender of the Faith.'" And yet
the noble lord now propose, on behalf of those very parties
whose aggression he then so manfully opposed, and those
unworthy members of our church to whom he had alluded,
to introduce a new form of oath which could only be cal-
culated for their benefit. When he remembered the posi-
tion assumed by the noble lord upon the former occasion,
and contrasted it with the present he was forcibly reminded
of the leaders of the military condottieri of the fourteenth
century, men of great military skill and courage, but who
were ready to draw their sword on any side, and who, after
exhibiting their destructive valouragainst a particular state
were ready to transfer themselves andtheir followereto the
service of the very people to whom they had been previously
opposed. But he might venture to ask, were they to follow
the noble lord, were they who supported the supremacy of
the crown under his headship now disposed to abandon it at
his summons ? Let them consider for one moment whet
this
requisitionof g
ivg
involved,ia and then let them pause upon the
consequences
way to the noble lord. Now, it was
a mistake which was very commonly made to suppose that
the supremacy of the crown was established in the reign of
Henry VIII. There was an assertion of the supremacy at
that time, but hebelieved it was a fundamental principle of
the constitution of this country, and if it were necessary he
could show repeated instances of the assertion of the supre-
macy of the crown in ecclesiastical matters against the
usurped power of the Popes even in Roman catholic times.
[The hon. and learned gentleman then quoted a declara-
tion of Lord Lyndhurst's, that the supremacy of the crown
in ecclesiastical matters was part of the common law of the
land.] In the reign of Elizabeth, however, when the seal
was set to our happy Reformation, it was considered ad-
visable that there should be a strong legislative declara-
tion of the authority of the Crown, for the purpose of
binding up the Protest ant religious establishment by law
into one compact, independent body, with the sovereign at
:ts head, and therefore it was that there being for the first
time in the first year of the reign of Elizabeth this legal
recognition of the supremacy, writers had invariably
treated that statute as being one of the main links of the
temporal institution of the Anglican Church, and as tho
key-stone of the arch'of the Protestant reformed religion
established by law. That being the charter of their
liberties, and the oath of supremacy which the Protestant
members now took of being framed on the model of that
which was contained in that Act of Parliament, he thought
they ought to look with great jealousy and suspicion on
any attempt to tamper with that oath. They had, in
fact, consecrated it by. introducing the principle which it
contained into the oath which was taken by the sovereign
at her coronation. What did the noble lord propose by
this new fangled form of oath? Ho proposed that the
oath of the sovereign should bathe only one that recognised
the Protestant constitution in its integrity. But had the
noble lord assigned no reason for this measure? Yes, he had
favoured them with certain of his views at the time he in-
troduced it, and pointed out particular parts of the oath
which he considered to be highly objectionable. In
the first place, the noble -lord said it was desirable
to get rid of this portion of the oath—" I do re-
nounce, reject, and abjure the opinions that princes excom-
municated by the Pope of Rome may be lawfully deposed
or murdered by their subjects, or by any other person what
ever." The noble lord said, " This was the doctrine of a
party at the time of the Reformation and immediately fol-
lowing it, but he did not believe that there were any per-
sons who held such a tenet at the present day, and he held
that it was wrong to call on persons to swear that they ab-
jured such a doctrine, when it was, in fact, an unwarrant-
able assumption that, there were any person liable to such
a suspicion." And the noble lord stated that those words
were introduced into the supremacy oath in consequence of
passage in the work of a Jesuit, approving of the murder
aof Henry 111. of Franca. [Lord J. Russell here made an
observation across the table, which was inaudible in the
gallery.] The first oath of supremacy was in 1558,
which
did not contain the clause in question. war
in
oath,
v
was introduced in consequence of the gunposvder pint,.sthase
not an oath of supremacy at all—it was in 1698 that
The noble lord said it was an insult to theßomaidsu
oath of supremacy was framed 33 it at present
Ctlothosal:
lies to require them to take an oath of this ki
oath, as it was now taken
'the very same objection was takenouill
cB2a9u,
lowliheee,ll wtls;aes,
ission of Roman Catholicthe mernber . refull y framed as one of by
ca gristiosTtwaeknotny!finvtehyeen
m
hadpart eolfawaemd ni
nos
alt. complaintofon
course
onethe
,anandalththoleirceinhemadbebreseonf
un h that any Len
kind, and he did not believe
must speak with groat forbearance ohn.o.a. subjdeacdt
Roman
d this
ertained any such principle
catholic of the present day ent
as that which this- oath was framed to guard against, but
he was smo he might appeal to every high-minded catho-
lic whether this was not, formerly, at least, a tenet of the
Roman Catholic Church. (Hear.) Had that opinion
ever been disavowed? and if not, let that part of the oath
be retained as it was when they passed the Relief Bill.
(Hear.) But the noble lord suggested that the oath of ell-
premacy was useless, because it was contained in the oath
of allegiance ; and he cited the authority of Lord, Eldon.

Now Lord Eldon certainly had held that doctrine, but
since 1829 he was afraid that the argument could not pre-
vail. If the oath of allegiance referred to the spiritual
supremacy of the crown, the Roman Catholics had been
deceived ; but that such was not the case he thought -was
proved by the fact, that a particular form of oath was pro-
vided for them, in which they were only required to re-
nounce the temporal supremacy of the Pope. In this de-
claration at the time of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill the
Roman Catholic laity expressly stated that they considered
themselves bound by their religious principles, and entitled
by their rights as Englishmen, to maintain the supremacy
of the Holy Father in spiritual matters. It was, there-
fore, impossible to nrgne that the oath of allegiance sup-
plied:the place of the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.)
But the noble lord's oath was not to be taken by members
of the House of Commons alone, but it was to be substi-
tuted in every case where the oath of supremacy was now
required • and he would ask the noble lord, who in his
famous letter had denounced those "unworthy members"
of their own church who were disposed to question the
supremacy of the crown, what would be the effect of
allowing those persons to take the proposed form? The
37th article contained an acknowledgment of the royal
supremacy, but they had had experience that that article
might be subscribed in a " ncn_
...natural sense"—(cheers)
with the aid of this qualifying oath as an inter-
preter, there could be no doubt whatever that the con-
struction of the article by tho
completely established. (Hoar, hear.) persons
would be
The object of
the noble lord's proposition, then, was to benefit the
Roman Catholics, and the Romanising pseudo-Protestants.
(Hear, hear.) He ventured now to appeal to the Dissent-
ing members. If it were a question between the church
and them, ho knew he should meet with no sympathy from
them ; but he ventured to submit to their most serious
consideration whether a movement which was evidently
e rn
intended to benefit the Roman Catholic me l
members of the English Church who were-(lis divided those
eifrom
them by a very thin wall of partition, was one that they
would be disposed to encourage ? .He would ask them. to
consider that the Established Church was one of the firmest
barriers even to themselves against the encroachments of
popery—(derisive cheers)—and he would caution them that
if they broke it down for the purpose of establishing
Roman Catholic ascendancy, they would find that the
little finger of Rome was thicker than the loins of Eng-
land. (Hear, hear.) The oath was one of the securities
devised at the passing of the Relief Act, and it had been
"framed in terms which had been considered by the heads
of the Roman Catholic body. In the pastoral which they
issued at the passing of the Relief Act., they stated that a
legislature which had so raised them from their prostrate
condition was entitled to their reverence and love. (Hear.)
Since then it was no doubt true that attempts had been
made to disturb the settlement which had then been come i
to, but the noble lord had always stood manfully in the
breach to resist them. In 1847 the noble lord stated that
he did not think it would be wise to alter a settlement
which had been arrived at after so many conflicts and
so much consideration. (Cheers.) He also declared that
no necessity had been shown for such an alteration.
Had any more necessity been shown since? (Cheers.)
It was only the circumstances in which the noble
lord had placed himself that had reduced him to this
unfortunate position. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
had expressed himself in similar terms on several sub-
sequent occasions ; but he now objected to that part
of the oath which bound Roman Catholics to preserve
the existing settlement of property, on the ground that
that was secured by law. (Hear.) But no one knew better
than the noble lord the imprescriptible character of
the claims of the Romish See ; for in 1851 he quoted with
approbation the saying of Du Carron, that though Rothe
might relax many of her claims, 'she never lost sight of
. them ; for she knew neither infancy nor widowhood ; she
learned many things but forgot nothing. The noble lord,
however, seemed to have reversed that antithesis. Ho
seemed to have forgotten some things and to have learned
nothing. (Laughter.) Either this part of the oath was
not objected to—and in that case it was idle to alter it —or
if it was objected to, it must be because the Roman Ca-
tholic members felt themselves in some degree hampered
by it ; and in that casehe besought the house not to give
up this small remaining fragment of security. (Hear.)
He thought he had now established his case, namely, that
the now oath was calculated only for the benefit of the
Roman Catholics and of the Romanisers. The noble lord
wished to toss over the supremacyle the Roman Catho-
lics, by requiring from them only a mutilated recognition
of it. When he had prostrated all the securities which
had been so carefully devised at the time of the Relief Act,
and which had been accepted by the heads of that Church
as such ; when he had, levelled these barriers, he would
then, by the aid of those who fought under the banners of
civil and religious liberty, get rid of the Christian form of
the oath, and so procure the admission of the Jews into the
Legislature--tthe ultimate and carefully guarded object of
the noble lord. (Cheers.) The noble lord had contrived
most ingeniously to carry out the idea of Caligula, for he
had given to the most dearly cherished principles of the
constitution ono neck, in order that he might destroy them
all at a single blow. (Hear.) What had happened since
the nobl lord stood forward as the champion of the Protes-
tant cause, to make him adopt such a widely different
course? Had the conduct of the Roman Catholics been
such as to call for further concessions ? Had those "un-
worthy members" of the English Church, whom the noble
lord charged with having • clone so much to weaken
the doctrines and principles of the Reformation, al-
tered their views ? Why, then, did he come for-
ward to aid those parties against whom ho had
been so constitutionally opposed upon every former
occasion? (Cheers.) However formidable the noble lord
might be in the ranks of their opponents, ho trusted that
they (the Conservative members) would not be dismayed.
For his own part, he committed himself fearlessly to the
conflict. He had ventured to take the lead on this occa-
sion, but he'knew that there were those behind him with
stout courage and good hearts, who, if he should fail,
would be ready manfully to wage battle with the noble
lord upon this important question. He could not believe
that their Protestant fellow members would be wanting to
them on such an occasion ; and he was satisfied that they
would be able to show a sufficient force to defend thetul-
weeks of their Protestant Constitution from the assault of
the noble lord upon the supremacy of the sovereign, the
established religion of the country, and their COII3IOII
Christianity. (Loud cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
help thinking that his hon. and learned friend had intro.
(laced into tho discussion a great deal of matter connected
with religious controversy that might advantageously baie
been spared—(hear, hear)—and which tended much more,
he should say from experience, to darken and taint the at-
mosphere of the house, and to blind and bewilder the
judgment of its members, than to assist in the elucidation
of any difficiilty connected with the law or constitution.
(Cheers) The subject had been treated by his hon. and
learned friend with reference to three classes—first, the
Jews ; secondly, those whom he designated the Romanising
Protestants ; and thirdly, a class whom he appeared to
. hold in worse odour even than them, the Roman Catholics.
As, however, the hon. and 'ear ned gentleman bore very
lightly on the Jews, he would follow his example, and say
very little about them. His hon. friend had, in fact, re-
ferred to them merely for the purpose of assailing the con-
sistency and the singlemindedness and integrity of puipose
of his noble friend the member for the city of London. Now,
it would be very easy for him, whatever his opinions might
be on questions relating to what were termed the principles
of religious liberty, to say that the reputation of his noble
friend for his consientious attachment to those principles
would be handed down to posterity through many genera-
tions, and could want no vindication either from his own
lips or from those of his colleagues. (Cheers.) He (Mr.
Gladstone) stated that as an im partial witness, because it
had often been his lot on various occasions and in various.
senses, to differ from his noble friend upon questions of this
kind ; but the testimony he had rendered was a testimony
BO eminently due to him, and so just, that he was sure that
even his hon. and learned friend, except in .the heat of
debate, would never himself have questioned it. (Cheers.)
Nothing would bower° easy than to refute the charge which
the hon. and learned gentleman had brought against the
noble lord, namely, that he had changed his views upon
the subject since his political connexion with the city of
London. If he (Mr.. Gladstone) was not mistaken, he had
himself hoard his noble friend in 1810, and again in 1845,
dilate upon the question of Jewish emancipation in pre-
cisely the same manner as he had since done. In 1847,
being then challenged upon this matter, his noble friend
put upon record a declaration in that house which ought
to have closed the lips of the hon. and learned gentleman
opposite. • (Mr. Gladstone then read an extract from b
speech of Lord John Russell, in which he stated that in
DM he promised to a deputation of Jews that ho would
on some future occasion introduce a measure for their com-
plete emancipation, whereas his connexion with the city of
London did not commence until the following year. His
hon. and learned friend having laid before the house a
number of imaginary facts, must next proceed to give a
number of reasons equally imaginary, to account for the
course which the noble lord had pursued. He said that the
noble lord's proceedings had been the fruit of a compromise
entered into in consequence of divergences of principle be-
tween the noble lord and his colleagues upon religious ques-
tions. Recalling to his recollection, however, the career
of his hon. and learned friend, and the various political
connexions into which he had himself entered—(a laugh)
—he (Mr. Gladstone) did not think that that portion of
his speech was as unobjectionable and elevated in point
of taste and feeling as he was bound to say the hen.
gentleman's speeches almost uniformly were. But if that
was the case, his speech was still less felicitous as a piece
of Parliamentary tactics. While the hon. gentleman was
finding fault on the score of divergence of opinion with a
Government who upon this subject were perfectly united,
there was within three feet of him a right hon. gentleman
under whose leadership he had served in the late Govern- i
meat, and who altogether differed from him
his speech on this ques-
tion. (Laughter.) When at tho close of the
hon. and learned gentleman said there were behind him
divers stout and able-bodied persons who would come for-
ward if he himself failed, he (Mr. Gla
dstone) could not
help thinking how odd would be the effect
if the deficiency
of his hon. and learned friend should be supplied by two
persons who, he should say, wore certainly the stoutest
ad most able-bodied in debate of those who sat opposite,
namely, the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks i
and the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. (Loud
laughter.) He believed he might advert to a yet more
tender connexion, for no do could be closer or more affec-
tionate than that which united law officers of the Crown,
and yet the hon. and learned gentleman who served as
Solicitor-General with his hon. and learned friend was in
the same unfortunate predicament of being at daggers
drawn with his hon. friend on this point. (Renewed
laughter) So here was three stout and valiantclrao deficiency
every one of whom, instead of making up any
in the hon. and learned gentleman's defence, would dealc
upon it the most deadly blows. (Leughter.) The hon.
and learned gentleman had charged his noble friend with
having made the Roman Catholics a present of the supre-
macy of the Crown.
Sir F. THESIGER---Not the whole of it;
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII, his
hon. and learned friend said that the proposed oath only
required a "mutilated acknowledgment of the supremacy ;"
and although he never expected much liberality from the
other side, he must frankly confess that he thought the
hon. gentleman had conceded a great deal too much to
his noble friend in admitting that his proposed oath
contained any acknowledgment of the supremacy at all.
Surely, if the supremacy meant anything, it meant an
ecclesiastical supremacy. • When he first hoard his hon.
and learned friend dilate upon the subject in the house,
he was astonished at the inaccuracy of his impressions
respecting the oath of supremacy. And unless the terms
of that oath were fresh in the recollection of hon. members,
or unless they had the opportunity of frequently referring
to the pasteboard copies in the box on the table, they
might be weak enough to believe that the oath of s
t
a
g
s
mace, contained something abchit supremacy. P.
who had given their attention to the subject notcould
tutt fail_
to be aware that, singular as it might be, the oof
0

supremacy contained nothing whatever on the subject of
the supremacy of the Crown. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE—The Sovereign is called the
head of the Church.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You say
that that in the oath of supremacy. ?
Mr. PHILLIMORE—No; but in tha oath of allegi•
ance.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That
from a distinguished member of the legal profession !
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If that was the depth of
darkness of a distinguished member of the legal profession,
what more than Cimmirean gloom must cover the gene-
rality of the members of that house ! (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He was speaking of the oath of supremacy,
and the hon. and learned gentleman quoted something as
from the oath of allegiance, which after all was not in it ;
for that oath said nothing about the Queen being the head
of the Church. And he would go further, and say that
the hon. and learned gentleman would find it extremely
difficult to show that the expression "head of the Church"
was applicable to her Majesty by any law of this country.
Mr. PHILLIMORE—It is " governor of the Church."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
were approeimating to the truth by slow degrees. But it
would be better for him not .to discuss the matter with the
hon. and learned gentleman, but to take the facts as they
stood. It was a fact that the oath of supremacy did, not
`declare the supremacy of the crown. (Hear.) It con-
tained two propositions—first, an abjuration of what was
called the deposing doctrine, and then a denial of the power
and jurisdiction of the Pope within these realms.
Sir F. THESIGER—Of the ecclesiastical power.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
a declaration, large as words could make it, excluding the
jurisdiction of the Pope, and any power or pre-eminence he
might have within notsal But that was a denial of
the power of the Pope,. P
ae aasertien of the power a the
crown. That was to be sought for from other sources.
How was this? . -The term " oath of, supremecy" had at-
tached to this oath from the time when it was first ens cted
in the reign of Queen Elisabeth. Then, no doubt, it very
well deserved the title, because at that time it began -with
these words :—" I, A. 8., do hereby testify and declare
on my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the
.only
governor of this realm . • . • as well in all ecclesias-
tical things and causes as iu matters temporal." That was
a perfectly intelligible phrase—that was an oath of supre-
macy. (Hear, hear.) But it had been altered, and when ?
The hon. and learned gentleman said it was a great bul-
wark of the Protestant constitution. But it was altered.
just at the very moment when the constitution became
emphatically Protestant. It was not until the revolution,
i
n the first year of William and Mary, that the oath of
supremacy , was altered ; then the declaration of supre-
macy, the clause of supremacy was omitted from the oath.
The title of the oath had remained ; the substance had been .
completely altered ; and it was now most inaccurately de-
scribed as an oath of supremacy. It was an oath for the two
haen had atdh do e sdeor inbi
denial
—0
f- t ht
he
e abnegationurisd i c ti
oonf theof t
heP depositionope.
purposesd o ctr ,
Would the hon. and learned jgentleman say that he was
refining on this matter, and that the two things were
identical? ? (Hear, hear, from Sir F. Thesiger.) g
far from being a refinement, it was a broad, clear,
palpable proposition ; it was not only a constitu-
tional truth, but almost a constitutional truism. The
supremacy of the Crown, acknowledged by the Church of
England, as members of the Church of England, was not
acknowledged by other gentlemen who -were members of
that house, of whom he saw a portion near him, any more
than it was acknowledged by the Roman Catholics. Those
gentlemen were willing to concur with the members of the
Church in an oath that abnegated and repudiated the autho-
rity of the Pope ; but they were no more willing than the
Roman Catholics themselves to concur in an oath -which
asserted the supremacy of the Crown. ("Hear, hear,"
from the Dissenting supporters of Government, with ironi.
cal cheers from the Opposition.) He must say that this
was not a subject for jeer or laughter ; such a course was
utterly inconsistent with the relations that ought to prevail
between members of that house, for he apprehended that
those who sat there for the purpose of discharging the grave
responsibilities that attached to the House of Commons,
ought to sit there on terms of equality. (Cheers.) And it
was not competent:to the hon. gentleman, according to his
iown private opinion, to define and circumscribe, and far
less to define and circumscribe by contemptuous signs, the
liberties of other people. (Hear.) He had thought it per-
fectly
notorious, and not requiring subtlety or argument of
any kind, that the gentlemen of this country who belonged
to the various bodies of Protestant Dissenters did very ge-
nerally refuse to admit the supremacy of the Crown. Was
that true or false ? (Hear, hear.) He contended that it
was not only true, but notorious and palpable. Then what
became of the jeers of gentlemen opposite, who said that
to deny authority to the _Pope within this realm was the
same thing as to assert the supremacy of the Crown. He
must protest against that doctrine. (Hear, hear.) There
was another body who were entitled to hold still stronger
language, and to protest -still more indignantly against
this attempt to curtail their liberty. The members of the
Presbyterian Church Establishment of Scotland were not
bound to admit the supremacy of the Crown in the Church
of England meaning ; and they, at all events, ought not
to be taunted on that account, for they sat in that
house under rights as well defined and.recognised as those
of any other members. They came there, not by'tolera-
tion, but; fully recognised as presbyterians, and as such
they took the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.) If the
hon. and learned gentleman assented to that proposition,
would he still say that an oath which denied the jurisdic-
tion of the Pope was the same thing with an oath which
asserted the supremacy of the crown ? (Hear, hear.) The
doctrine of the crown's supremacy was no doubt held by
the Church of England ; it was firmly embodied in its au-
thorised religious documents ,- and to those documents
they must go if they wished to find it, or knoW what it
was. Tho hon. and learned gentleman, with all his acute-
ness, would wear out his oyes in the search before he could
find it in the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) ' If that were so, his charge that the Government
was making a present of the doctrine of supremacy to the
Romanising Protestants, as he called them, fell to the
\
ground ; for this plain reason, that that doctrine existed
elsewhere, but not in the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. awl learned gentleman had used au expression
calculated to raise some prejudice, by saying that the alto-
ration of the oath of supremacy would not be applicable
to that house alone, but to all other occasions on which
the oath was enjoined to be taken. Whether his legal
construction were sound or not was perfectly immaterial ;
for the only two classes out of Parliament whom it was
thought good policy to tie up and bind by a distinct decla-
ration of the doctrine of supremacy were the clergy and the
members of the universities, and the obligations of those
two classes would remain in substance exactly as they were
independently of this bill. The doctrine really was con-
tained in the 37th article of the Church of England ; there,
both the positive and the negative part of the doctrine were
to be found. The positive part explained very clearly the
various relations of the crown to the Established Church;
and the latter part of the article dealt with the case of the
Bishop of Rome, in terms which worn admirable for their
simplicity and clearness—" The Bishop of Rome bath
no jurisdiction in the realm of England." (Hear.) It
was said the articles were interprered in a non-natural
sense. Ho had never heard of any person attempting to
show that there was the slightest difficulty about the con-
struction of the 37th article. Could they say as much for
the oath of supremacy ? The hon. and learned gentleman,
though he spoke of it very highly, and-said that it had re-
ceived a judicial construction, had not attempted to state
what that construction was. He (Mr. Gladstone).did not
believe-that it had received a judicial construction ; at all
events, its explanation was a matter of the very greatest
difficulty. There had been various attempts to reconcile
the declaration that the Popo had no jurisdiction in this
realm, 'with the recognition by the law of acts performed
by the Roman Catholic Church, as the solemnisation of mar-
riages and the bestowal of holy orders. They might be re-
conciled e but the hon. and learned gentleman was not jus-
tified in speaking of this oath as one framed in terms so
happy, simple, and direct, that they were calculated to
baffie the wiles of those who sought to evade it. On the
contrary, the words in the article were such as would bind
men's opinions; for when a multitude of words were used,
they could not be safely relied on as securities of the con-
stitution. He hoped the house would bear in mind that
the oath of supremacy contained not one word about the
doctrine of supremacy, which the Government was accused
of making a present of to Romanising Protestants, and as-
serted nothing whatever as to the power of the crown in
ecclesiastical matters. Not only so, but if the hon. and
learned gentleman's construction were the true one, its
effect would be (what he, perhaps, might like very well) to
create a new law a& exclusion against a large class of mem-
bers sitting in that house, to narrow the pale of the consti-
tution, and to take civil rights and privileges from those
who now enjoyed them. (Hear.) To the change proposed
with respect to the Roman Catholics the hon. and learned
gentleman had urged various objections. He complained
that Catholics were no longer to be called on to
abjure the opinion that princes might be deposed and
murdered by the Pope, and said that in the Reform
Act of 1833, the noble lord (Russell) had continued
to maintain that declaration. That, as a mere arguntentent
ad hontirtent, was not of much value ; but it was inaccurate
as to the principle concerned. What Lord J. Russell said
was, that it was an insult to ask a Roman Catholic to say
that he did not hold the opinion that
princes might be
deposed and murdered by the see of Rome ; for the very
phrase bespoke the illegality of the action. No Man could
assert the contrary—that princes might be murdered by
the Pope of Rome, or any one else. It was said the doc-
trine was once held in the Church of Rome. No doubt the
deposing doctrine was held by large and powerful parties
in that Church ; and was contested by other large and
powerful parties ; but the hon. and learned gentleman had
entirely missed the point in charging the noble lord with
inconsistency. For his own part he did not attach the
slightest value to the use of these words, either as to the
renunciation of the opinion that princes might be mur-
dered, or even that they might be deposed by authority of
the see of Rome. And the hon. and learned gentleman
had himself ingeniously admitted that he did not think
there was much efficacy in these securities. He said,
" Let us stand by them to the last, however feeble they
may be." (Hear, hear.) - - •
'Sir F. THESIGER—It was not in reference to Roman
Catholics that I used that expression.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be much to be regretted if the house attached weight
and value to declarations of this kind, which they really
did not carry in themselves. (Hear, hear.) These decla-
rations of the renunciation of particular opinions gave no
. security; the strength of the Church lay in the attachment
of the country. (Hear, hear.) That attachment was bestt
promoted by what united class with class, and
ho
man. (Cheers.) So far as that house was concerned,
its
was well convinced by experience that its hfaorrmwon
which it
unity, its usefulness, for the great purposes man wi h
topics of
ance, as far as might be, of these i h P
existed, were best promoted by the exculsaiopnyand avoid-
reduce their law into a state of correspondence religious difference. (Cheers.) And the more they couldwith
could put out from tin
law opinion, the more they caa c
causeyin
law that which, without being oficli
itself, beenae a source of strife
c.Thoofy their fellow
onvgesigthtteamn,daenffid
should
Christians and and tallow men,
e itted to them on behalf
of great soreness to the tenderacon
orEflunugnl adn (.fl
a.
ul (tCwhietebr silt e Ts
uhre. charge the duties that welree se
et
it
cenr
hon. and learned of the crown anddotobtietiop
declaration, in the following terms --
render of another
to the utmost .
that I will uphold, of my power,
"I do swear gentleman also o
sight he would not say pitiable, but
the settlement of property within this realm establiehed by
the laws." It was a ,
one to stir regret, to see a gentleman of masculine and
powerful intellect, and of such great and deserved end-
his hon. and learned friend, attaching value to
nonce as
such words as these put into the oath of the Roman Ca-
tholics. (Hear, hear.) What was the construction of
these words? He could hardly conceive any construction
which the freak and fancy of an individual might not at-
tach to words like those. Professing to be bound by them,
ho might say he could not concur in any act, however
simple, which tended in the slightest degree to affect the
existing settlement of property. (Hear, hear.) . These
words were introduced to meet the apprehensions that
existed in this country before 1829, 'with reference to
opinions supposed still to linger among the people of Ire-
land regarding the arrangements of property under Charles

't.