The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-20 00:00:00

LONDON,

The Hon. Gentle-

reduced from six months to throe.

man who spoke last admitted that he was very strongly
convinced of Us( necessity of passing the measure thee
bEore them; tad he seemed to be equally convince'i
with the Government that the state of Ireland require d
such an Act; bu t surely such opinions as those form ed
no reason at all for assenting to the proposition of the
Noble Lord opposite. Certainly some arguments had
been advarced on the opposite side; but the proposition
of the Noble Lord went far beyond the force of those
arguments. Ho did not forget how earnestly it had
been contended that it was preposterous to give six
months' duration to, the Bill while Parliament was to con•
tinue its session dining the whole of that period. But
Members, he trusted; would bear in mind that if a Bill
like that were to rem sin open to discussion from the time
Parliament asseinbleci until it was prorogued, their
would be no opportunity for the consideration of reme-
dial measures for Irela ud. Again, with respect to the
duration of the measure., he might be permitted to ask,
was it not much better than the Bill that was passed in
1822 ? In the present veer the sitting of Parliament
began iu the month of February, the duration of the
Bill was limited to six mouths, and thus did they pro-
pose to follow the shorter precedent. The Howse had,
by repeated dir:Aions, expressed its opinion that the
measure then before them ought to extend over the time
that the Government had thought it their duty to
propose, upon th is amongst other grounds, that there
was reason to apprehend a renewal of the insurrection of
last year. With a view, then, to prevent designs of an
insurrectionary character being carried into effect, and
influenced by the reasons which he had already sub-
mitted to the House, he should resist any limitation of
the Bill, and oppose the amendment of the Noble Lord.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that those who were in the
minority on the present question ought not to support
the proposition of the Noble Lord, whose doctrine seemed
to be that the measure was quite wrong for six months,
though quite right for three, striking a sort of average.
Now he must be permitted to say that he did not like
this sort of tinkering of the Constitution. The Noble
Lord had better at once " go the whole animal"—(A
laugh)—and he (Mr. Reynolds) recommended his friends
not to go with the Noble Lord.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he should not vote at all on
the present occasion.
Lord NUGENT pressed his , amendment, when the
House divided, and there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it ...
Majority ...
The Bill was then passed.
On the title of the Bill being read,
.Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved that, after the words
" against her Majesty's person and Government," these
words be inserted, " and also to suppress the expression
of public opinion in that country."
The motion was negatived without a division.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

.. 166
".----155

Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said—Mr. Speaker,
I rise to bring before the House the important subject of
the oaths taken by Members of this branch of the Le-
.

gislature. In the course of the last session I had the

honour to propose, and the good fortune to carry
through this House, a Bill for relieving her Majesty's
Jewish subjects from the disabilities under which they
laboured. That Bill having been rejected in the House
of Lords, I now propose to take a part of the same sub-
ject, and to deal more completely and entirely with that
subject. I propose that the House shall review in Com-
mittee the subject of the oaths required to be taken by
Members; and if I am fortunate enought to obtain the con-
sent of the House to go into Committee, I trust that as was
allowed last session, they will permit me to bring in a Bill,
and to lay my scheme before the House. I should state,
in the first place, that I do not propose at all to interfere
with the oath which is now taken by Roman Catholic
Members of this House. That oath, after 150 years of
exclusion, was deliberately settled in the year 1829
twenty years ago. Roman Catholics have sat in this
House, having taken that oath, and although there have
been occasionally some differences of opinion as to the
meaning of a part of that oath, yet I think the House
and the country generally are satisfied that that oath is
faithfully taken, and that it is honestly observed; and
after having found that, since the admission of Roman
Catholics to this House, that oath has afforded every
security which it was intended to provide, I do not
propose now to unsettle that part of the subject. But
Sir, if I ask the House to consider the other oaths
which are taken, I think I can hardly fail in inducing
them to agree with me that those oaths do not answer
the purpose for which they are imposed.—(Hear, hear,
and cheers.) Those oaths, it is manifest, are not
merely a declaration of opinion ; they are intended
as a means to an end ; they are intended to secure the
due performance of duties incumbent upon the Members
of this House. It is obviously necessary that Members
of this House should bear allegiance to the Sovereign,
and should be ready to support the safety of the country.
It may be necessary to impose other engagements, upon
which I will afterwards touch ; but if it should be found
that these oaths contain matter utterly unnecessary, mat-
ter which is ambiguous, and that they impose undue re-
strictions, and, in tact, bear with them exclusions against
a part of her Majesty's subjects which are not justifiable
—if this be the fact, I think you must agree with me
that those oaths are defective, and that they require your
consideration with a view to their amendment. Now,
Sir, in considering these oaths I take first the oath of
allegiance, which declares—" I, A. 8., de sincerely pro-
mise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true alle-
giance to her Majesty Queen Victoria." To that oath
of course I have no objection. The oath, et supre-,
macy is the next ; and here I must ask the House
to listen to the opinion of Lord Eldon,,„with re-
gard to that oath. In discussing the question of
the admission of the Duke of Norfolk to the pri-
vileges of Earl Marshal, from which he had been de-
barred by this oath, Lord Eldon said :
" With respect to the oath of allegiance to be taken
by the Earl Marshal, I must say, as a lawyer, Alio it
contains in it everything included in the oath of supre-
macy, and that the oath of supremacy was in fact added
as an explanation of the oath of allegiance, or, as Lord
Hale has expressed it,' was passed to unravel the errors
that had crept in."
The opinion, then, of Lord Eldon, founded upon the
dictum of Lord Hale, is that the oath of allegiance con-
tained all that was afterwards inserted in the oath of
supremacy; and it was only from a misunderstanding of
the oath of allegiance that it became necessary to add
the oath of supremacy, in order to assure Parliament
and the country that the oath of allegiance was under-
stood in the sense in which it was proposed. The oath
of supremacy, as at present taken, is in these terms :
" I, A. 8,, do swear, that I do from my heart abhor,
detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that dam-
nable doctrine and position, that princes excommuni-
cated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the
see of Rome, may be deposed or murthered by their
subjects or any other whatsoever."
(" Hear, hear," from the O'Gorman Mahon, and laugh-

ter.) This is a part of the oath, no doubt, contained in
the oath of allegiance, but at the same time certainly
unnecessary for Protestants--either members of the
Church of England or persons dissenting from that
Church—to take. I cannot believe that any Roman
Catholics would now profess such a doctrine—(Hear,
hear)—and it is certainly impossible to suppose that
any Protestants could profess it. But the oath goes on:
" And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or autho-
rity, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."
Now, it so happens that these words have given rise to
very considerable doubt,—a doubt carried so far in the
minds of two or three members of the other House that,
on account of these words, they have refused to take
their seats as Peers of Parliament. For my part, I
conceive that the interpretation put upon the oath by
those Noble Lords—one of whom has published a
letter on the subject—is altogether erroneous ; but
at the same time I do not much wonder at the mis-

interpretation.—(Rear, hear.) All that I imagine
we declare by these words is, that there is no lawful juris-
diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, residing in the Pope or any
other power in this country. I believe, however, that
those who entertain the objections I have mentioned un-
derstand that we affirm that no person has any jurisdic-
tion, pre-eminence, authority, or influence over the
minds of others within this realm. It is obvious that

the Pope has considerable authority and influence over
the minds of those who belong to his communion, that
his decrees and his decisions affect the state of the
Roman Catholic bishops and of the Roman Catholic
priests in this country, in Ireland, and in Scotland; and
in that sense it cannot be said that he is without spiritual
authority. But when we come to examine the oath taken
by Roman Catholics we find that that portion of it
which refers to this subject is in these terms:—" And I
do declare that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome,
or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state,
or potentate, bath ox ought to have any temporal
or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-
eminence, directly or indirectly, within this
realm." Therefore, while you require of the Protes-
tant that he shall say that the Pop© has no spiritual
or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, you only require the Roman
Catholic to say that the Pope has no temporal or civil
jurisdiction in this kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) It seems
to me obvious that, if this is a sufficient security to be
given by a Roman Catholic who does pay spiritual obe-
dience to the Pope—who considers the Pope as the head
of his church—if this is a sufficient security from a
Roman Catholic who is a Member of this House, it is
quite sufficient that any Protestant should make the
same declaration, that the Pope has no civil or temporal
jurisdiction in this realm. As the matter stands at pre-
sent, the Parliament, having a jealousy with regard to
Roman Catholics, requires them to make certain decla-

rations with reference to the power and authority of the
Pope; and having no jealousy with regard to Protes-
tants, it requires from them a stronger and more stringent
declaration than is required from the Roman Catholics.
—(Hear, hear.) And yet these words, which are, as
I have said, totally unnecessary—which place the guard
where it is not required—are, the very words which

have been found by some Noble Lords to impose difficul-
ties they think insuperable in the way of their acting
as Peers of Parliament, and as such, giving advice to the

Crown upon the grave and solemn affairs of the nation.
This, therefore, is a reason—even if there were only one
person who entertained such a doubt—for taking away
that which is obviously an unnecessary restriction. I
come next to the third oath—the oath of abjuration,
which, after acknowledging the Queen as lawful and

rightful Queen of this realm, goes on to say—
" And I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do
belive in my conscience that not any of the descendants
of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales
during the life of the late King James the Second, and,
since his decease, pretended to be, and took upon himself
the style and title of King of England, by the name of
James the Third, or of Scotland by the name of James
the Eighth, or the style and title of King of Great Bri-
tain, bath any right or title whatsoever to the crown of
this realm, or any other the dominions thereunto belong-
ing ; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any alle.
gtonca or obedience to any of them."