The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-05 00:00:00

lIIIPEACHMENT OF THE LA'T'E MINISTRY.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from a Mr. Richard
Jones, of Limehouse, which stated that in the petitioner's
opinion, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen, Sir R.
Peel, and the other Members comprising the late Ad-
ministration, hail conspired to ruin the country.—(Loud
laughter.)—He trusted, therefore, that the House would
order them to be impeached.—(Laughter.)
OATHS IN PARLIAMENT BILL. •

Mr. C. WYNN, in rising to move the Order of the
Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the
above Bill, would at present proceed with only one part
of the measure, and would allow the other to stanri over
until after the House had come to a decision upon the mo-
tion of which the Judge-Advocate had given notice, re-
specting the Jews.

Sir H. INGLIS thought that much inconvenience might
arise from allowing Members to proceed to the election of a
Speaker, without having previously taken the oaths before the
Lord Steward ; but there existed a much stronger objec-
tion to the measure. Members entered that House free
to repeal all statutes on the books, except one. That ex-
ception would be swept away if the present Bill should
pass. The oath of abjuration bound Members not to re-
peal the Act of Settlement. A man of no mean literary
celebrity had declared, that the title of the House of Ha-
nover to the throne of this kingdom, to the exclusion of
the Sardinian family, depended entirely on the Act of
Settlement. The oath of abjuration was the only exist-
ing security against the disturbance of the Act of Settle-
ment, and so far the present measure, if carried, would
weaken that Act.

Mr. FERGUSSON said, that the exclusion of the
House of Savoy did not rest on the oaths of any men, but
on the efficacy of an Act of Parliament. The oath of
abjuration was intended to nest a temporary danger,
which had long since passed away. The oath of a<sur-
ance in Scotland was another remnant of former legisla-
tion which cught also to be exploded, as it was merely a
repetition of the oath of abjuration, and he saw no rea-
son why Scotch loyalty should be bound by double gua-
rantees, one when would equally answer the same purpose.
There was another oath even more objectionable still, and
that was the oath of supremacy, affirming that the Pope's
dispensation could not justify the murder of a Prince, and
this oath, strange to say, was required of Protestants, and
of Protestants alone.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir C. WETHERELL said, his Hon. and Learned—
or rather his Noble—Friend, Lord Brougham, as be
must henceforward call hins, had formerly observed, that
in taking the oath of zbjuration, they were only wasting
their breath in a vain negative, and he had afterwards
conversed upon the subject with that distinguished indivi-
dual, to whose constitutional principles it was only an act
of justice to assume that, placed in the exalted station
which he now occupied,. he could never bring himself to
sanction the abrogation of that part of the oath conclusive
against the claims of the collateral descendants, however he
might dispose of what affected lineal descendants, who
onlylived in tholetter-press of the oath itself. Every historian
—nay, every loyal roan—ought to know that collateral
claimants, if such a claim were tenable, might be found on
the continent, in the house of Sardinia firstly, and then in
the family of King Philip, of France, to pursue the in-
quiry no farther. If when the Act of Settlement was
framed, it was thought necessary to put an end to the
claims of the collateral as well as lineal descendants, so
touch of the oath as related to the former still ought to be re-
tained. He did not object to an alteration in the terms
of the oath so far as lineal descendants were concerned,
and was quite willing to strike out the three words
which gave his Learned Friend so much uneasiness, lest
they should " waste their breath ;" but be would not
consent to the excision of a syllable that would violate
the principle of the oath which contemplated the col-
lateral descendants of the House of Stuart as well as lineal.
The King of England, till within some 16 years, assumed
amongst his titles the sovereignty of France, although
every one knew that such a claim was recognised only in
heraldry and court usage, and had no foundation in history
or fact. Hon. Gentlemen, when they went to church in
former times to hear Braham and Catalani—(Laughter)—
might surely remember that this now obsolete title was
regularly introduced in the prayer before the sermon, and
although Frenchmen were not at all alarmed lest his Bri-
tannic Majesty might attempt to prosecute his claim, they
actually required that the very ghost of such a title should
be abjured, and made its renunciation a provision of the
Treaty of Amiens. He could mention many other in-
stances of diplomatic arrangement, es-en still more in
point, hut that a recapitulation would be unnecessary.._.
(Mr. Wynn was here observed to smile.)—lle begged of
the Right Hon. Gentleman to suspend his triumph, it
would be quite sufficient for him to chant his Io Pceans
by and by.—(Laughter.)—This was not the way to con-
vince hint, although perfectly open to conviction, that
they should alter what was established by the wisdom of
centuries. At the same time, in compliance with the
suggestion of his Noble and Learned Friend, Lord Vaux
—(Laughter)—he would spare the breath of Hon. Gen-
tlemen, and annul the passage he bad mentioned, but
would never abolish an oath which comprehended the
whole principle of the revolution, which denied to the col-
lateral descendants of the Stuarts a right, or the shadow of
a right, or the colour of a pretension, to the throne of
England.

On the SPEAKER putting the question that the House
should go into Committee on the oaths in Parliament Bill,
Mr. C. W. W IiNN, in reply to an objection from the
Hon. Baronet, might mention that in the oath taken before
the Lord Steward there was not a word about qualifies
tion. The declaration on that subject was filed in the
Clerk's-office, and the Member was obliged to swear at
the table of the House that his qualification is a true one.
A single fact would best refute the Hon. Baronet's notion
as to the trifling nature of the inconveniences attendant on
the present functions of the Lord Steward. In 1810 the
then Lord Steward having resigned in the morning, with-
out the fact having transpired, his deputy proceeded with
the swearing of members, all of whom thereby unknow-
ingly might have forfeited their seats, and incurred the
penalty of the -statute. At present should any important
question be pending, the Lord Steward, by resigning,
might incapacitate every member of the House of Commons,
until Ministers should have an opportunity of advising
with his Majesty concerning the appointment of a successor.
Was there not a specific and most explicit law, by which
the house of Sardinia, as well as the other descendants, in
the comprehensive sense of the term, of the Stuarts, were
totally excluded from the throne of this realm? Wai
there not the Act of Settlement, a part, and moat im-
portant part, of the law of the land, by which the succes-
sion to the Britislit" Throne was established beyond the
reach of controversy, and was not that Act decisive
and sufficient on the matter ? Was there any claimant
of the house of Stuart at present in existence to
alarm them, to " fright the isle from its propriety ?"
The representative of that ancient and once Royal
family was the Duchess of Modena ; and he 'be-
lieved even the Hon. Member for the University of Ox-
ford himself did not suffer much alarm for the safety of
the Protestant establishments of the country from the
claims of that illustrious lady. The fact was, as the
House was well aware, the Duchess of Modena never put
forward any claim to the throne of England, founded on
her descent from the last of the Stuart Kings; never as-
sumed any title implying any such claim ; and if ever she
did, would her folly be worth a thought unsupported by an
army or alliances to enforce it ?__( Hear.) In truth, it
was a little too much for common sense to bear with gra-
vity, that at this period of our history and of the history
of the world, Hon. Members should seriously express any
apprehension that the doing away with an oath—origin-
ally imposed for temporary purposes no longer in exist-
ence—would endanger the succession of the House of
Brunswick, and open the way to the throne of this great
empire of some quasi collateral descendant of James IL—
( Hear.) Now, suppose the oath of abjuration wholly
abolished, is there any Hon. Member would venture to
assert that thereby the claims of any descendant from
James 11. to the throne of this realm would be promoted
one jot, or that the Brunswick succession would be in the
least affected by it ?—(Flear.) But, says the Hot!.
and Learned Gentleman,
_recollect that King Louis
Philip is a collateral descendant of the House of Stuart...-.