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

)ro tection
ovhich was
continue•
witnesses•
Icred as
PS made lt

he saw ro

witnesses
3onsent DD
On would
)geared to
et a mar
ima facie
iabitatien
evidence
;ree wits

)rovisions
lici le ; for
for the
to extend
;ht, and a
ps ought
without
yet been
nission of
3mony to
He wag
e happi•
untry.
iestion to
the mew•
had re-

perhaps
fend that
complete
the fact,
iplete the
ause, the
le Legie'
s any be
nuch ill-
hich was

Almost
the la+r•
e, Hard-
mplained
he law of
?cause it
der,
pose only

35 of the
.11y mar•
ly mar
ould not

'sure on
i 1 upon
the Bill
,gis trail
but the
It we.
,gistrore
/as ner-
ge pre
referred

AND)

11 read'

co inks'
nous°
3 00
of thils
,lres.---

to harp
vatio
• O.
SbUria

yet have great difficulty in preserving the
tranquillity. lle knew that this question was tiresome
to Members who had already formed their opinions upon
it; but the Bill aimed a blow at the constitution
of the country in crippling the rights of
the people, and be the consequences what they
might, he would still persist in opposing it in
every stage. But sooner or later the cause of the Irish
people would triumph. True, they were now
much opposed ; but what great cause had suc-
ceeded without opposition? Look at the Established
Church and the Christian religion. Were they
founded without opposition? No ; but their defenders
had to put up with the severest persecution before they
succeeded, and so it must ever be; so it had been with
the people of Ireland, but succeed they could and
must eventually. But what rendered this Bill
the more disgusting was that it came
li
from a Minister who was the descendant of the great

Russell, who perished on the scaffold in defence of the
• rights of the people; and the Noble Lord might depend
upon it that the time was fast coming when the contempt
of the people of England for measures of this nature,
and sympathy for the sufferings of the Irish people,
would hurl him from the power he had so long strug-
gled for, and so much abused. He would L
ask Lng,ll6ll-
men if they would tolerate such a violation of the on
stitut ion when universal tranquillity prevailed throughout
the country ? He referred to the case of several men who
had been arrested under the powers granted to
the Lord-Lieutenant, and were taken te Belfast,
where they were kept eight weeks withoutseeieg the open
air, and were obliged to associate with
thieves and pick-
pockets. They were removed to a prison in Dublin, where
they were subjected to the most strict regulations being
refused to see their friends and to write letters, except
with the petenission of the authorities, and
being compelled' to fill the most menial offices.
Ireland was not over-populated—the land could sustain
its own people as well as the land of Belgium
maintained its people. The old fe 'dal system,
which they had not had the manliness to destroy,'
was the bane of that country, and until this system were
abolished the corn-laws would be found utterly inopera-
tive. It was true the Irish were hungry and weak, but
the time might come when they would burst their
bonds and take those rights which they now denied
them. Standing as Irishmen were on the threshold of the
constitution, no man would dare agitate for their rights or
privileges; and would they find the Irish people loyal
after the course pursued? No; far oven in the north of
Ireland the people were becoming discontented, when a
rumour went abroad that a national tax would be levied
for the support of the Irish poor. He (Mr. F. O'Connor)
would ask the Noble Lord, after what had been said by
the lion. Member for Montrose, whether it was possible
to go on with the condition of Ireland as it now stood? It
was out of the question, and what was now discontent
would turn out, ere long, to be disloyalty. They could no
longer govern the people by the follies and maxims
taught at Harrow, at Westminster, at Oxford, or at Cam-
bridge. They could no longer rule the people by sueh
means. Public opinion now predominated, and if it were
unfairly checked the most dreadful consequences would
ensue. He should give the measure every opposition
in his power, and he was not asking too much of Irish
Members when he implored them not to allow themselves
to be humbugged, not to allow themselves to be cajoled
by the Government, or the Noble Lord at its head, but
to give the measure, with him, the most determined re-
sistance. Of the number taken into custody under the
Habeas Corpus Act, six yet remained in prison, and
were now in Kilmainham, after being detained in Belfast
four months without being brought to trial, among cri-
minals of the worst description. If they were disposed
to trample over Ireland, did they suppose that France or
America would permit them; and when they talked of
human misery and of the sufferings of Poland, they
ought to remember that koland did not lose over a mil-
lion of men by famine. He was always an advocate for
liberty not that liberty which degenerated into licenti-
ousness but gave peace and happiness and prosperity to
the people. In days of yore if such a measure were pro-
posed there would have been constitutional authorities to
get up and resist it; but the Whigs of the present day
abandoned their former principles, and forgot the maxims
of their ancestors. He would, with the pleasure of the
House, read a few extracts.
An HON. MEMBER—NO, no, no.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR Who said " No, no?"
(Laughter.) If the Hon. Member objected to his read-
ing the opinions of the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government on the English Constitution; of those of
Blackstone, Fox, Bolingbroke, Hallam, &c., then he
Would with great pleasure allow the Hon. Member to
read them for the House. He should not, however, in
any case occupy the House more than six months—(Great
laughter)—six minutes he meant.
Sir GEORGE GREY—You have been already an
hour.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR—If he were an hour it was be-
cause the statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet
himself, in introducing the Bill, was so defective and so
erroneous that he had to correct him. The lion. Mem-
beru
then proceeded to read extracts from Blackstone
Lord Brogham, Fox,
,
and in Bolingbroke, and Lord J. Russell;
reference to the latter, he implored the House to
contrast Lord John Russell as Prime Minister with Lord
John Russell in his closet, writing an essay on the Eng-
lish constitution. In the extract from the work of the
Noble Lord, he said that when a conspiracy existed it
might be wise to imprison a few of the leaders in order
to suppress it, but it never ought to be put in operation
against the people generally, for it would produce the
most lamentable consequences. This measure was not
expedient, said Blackstone, except when the State was
in danger. Now, had it not been declared by everybody
that the real danger had ceased? This was not the
first time that the party now in power had violated the
British Constitution. He hoped that there were some
Saxon blood, some Saxon spirit, in that House, and that
it would not sanction that measure. He had stood up
for this cause, and he believed it to be the cause of
justice, and the cause of justice was the cause of God.
Sir GEORGE GREY apologised for reminding the !
lion. Gentleman of the time he had occupied, but took I

the liberty to remind him of the resolution of the House
ou that subject, of the expediency of which, if anything
could have convinced him, it was the speech of the Hon.
Member. Expunging all the extracts from his speech,
a very small portion would remain to be answered. It
sufficed to say that this measure was not to be enforced
against the hundreds and thousands of the people of Ire-
land, but only against the leaders of insurrection, and
that was consistent with the most constitutional prin-
ciples. That being so, and the House having, by its
votes, in effect expressed its belief that the present occa-
sion, and the state of existing circumstances in Ireland,
called for this measure, he should now simply call upon
the House to adhere to its expressed opinions, and vote
for the motion now under consideration.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. R. ROCHE said that if they were to have
cercion, what were they to have to make them swallow
that bitter dose? The remedial measures of the present
Ministry might be summed up in this—wait till the po-
tato grows—in the meantime let them tide over their
difficulties. All he could say was, Heaven defend them
from these potato statesmen.—(Laughter.) He sincerely
hoped that Ireland would never again be governed by the
con-acre system.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.)
Ile thought that that root was mainly at the bottom of
all their difficulties.—(Hear, hear.) Their system of
emigration, as a measure of regeneration, was perfectly
futile. He looked on all sides of the House, but nothing
worth acceptance was offered. The Hon. Member for
Montrose (Mr. Hume) said he wished to govern Ire-
land in the best possible manner, but none of the
Irish Members would show him how to do it. As a
Repealer, he might easily answer his question, but
he would not take advantage of that question. The
Irish Church was one of
their greatest grievances.
These repeated measures of coercion were another
grievance. These measures preventedf them from rally-
ing against the Church in Ireland,
iethtta maintenance
of which not one Member could riser
place it upon a rational ground. The socialteviLuosfe
Ire-
land were greatly owing to the interest which the land-
lordslrned-
had in that House. They endeavoured to bring
the rich soil in Ireland in contact with the poor people,
but that was vain without a sound and sweeping m
sure with regard to the tenure of Ireland.--(Hear,
hear.) They never would need a similar measure in
England. That could, therefore, be no objection. He
would stop at the question of landlord and tenant.
There was great room for financial retrenchment.
They had a mock Court ; that Court might benefit
bublin, but what good dd it do the country gene.
rally? Look again at the Grand Jury Cess. There was
a million and a quarter raised annually of. this money
spent by these irresponsible men. Although some part
of it was well spent, thousands were wasted. Were not
these crying grievances in Ireland? Did they do any-
thing to encourage landlords to give leases to their te-
nants in Ireland? When thousands and thousands of
Pounds were being wasted in consequence of the financial
413 d other evils he mentioned, had they not a right to
ennsplain? Instead of the present mock Court in Ire-
land, which did but little good, why could not her Ma-
'estY Queen Victoria hold her Court in Ireland for a
month or more in the year, as might suit her conveni.
Z.rlee? He asked why or how it was that all the parties
finwhorn be had alluded, sitting on both sides of the
i-e'slse, and differing as they did upon every other sub-
' should yet all unite for the purpose of oppres-
sing Ireland ? It could not be with the view of
grulpuillising Ireland. They never could tran-
suicidal!! Ireland by such means. It was too late, in the
by forcible means. Above all, those who sat on the.
trot]sury bench were the very last men who should in-
of such a measure. The Noble Lord (Palmerston)
, recently actei in the capacity of a general liberator
°L nat'
Na Inns, and aided the repeal of the union between
a plea and Sicily. They boasted of being the repre-
.sitativss of the principles of Pyaa and Hampden, and
Sti:lerefore in consistency they ought to refrain from pas-
'7. such measures.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr- J, HAMILTON gave a short explanation of the
flr_canastances under which Mr. Meany was removed
!nal the debtor to the criminal side of Kilmainham gaol,
'cine,d, defended the conduct of the Board of Superinten-
"Lsin that case. He had himself se, n Mr. Meany in
leery
comfortable room, with as good a tire as any gen-
ai;tllan would wish to sit near, and supplied with an
undance of pens, ink, and paper.
;, Mr. HUME would not have addressed the House, had
'6 not been that the HOP. Member for Nottingham and
2tihrrs had addressed themselves to a great extent to
..4,03, as if he were an oppressor of Ireland. Now, he
i:rvittedthat it was strange that he should be. found
seating a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—
rhale ear, hea—but it was not without reason, for though
t© been a steady advocate of the civil and political
his of Ireland, it was with regret that he witnessed
s efforts were in vain. He was not in the habit of
tailunering to Hansard, but he might be allowed to quote
htre eiad sielf a quarter of a century ago, to show the views
all along held on this question. In 1824 he
s
„„,.
oat rgled for an equality of civil, religious, and .
~.)!letical rights for Ireland, He said then that there I
tTauld be either justice or contentment in Ireland
dpulluallt Church was abolished, and the 1

political predominancy of some seven or eight hundred
thousand men over the whole of the nation was di--
stroked. He then said, also, that want of employ-
ment was ono of the groat evils of Ireland, and that
ought not to be the case while there was abundance
of capital in this country. He believed then,
and believed now, that English legislation had been the
curse of that country, and that until justice was done to
it we should continue to suffer in this. But if they cool I
make those suffer who had caused this mischief it would
be well, instead of bringing in those who, like himself,
had not been parties to the injustice. But then he wss
asked why he supported this Bill?---(Hear, hear.) It
was because ho believed that unless there was quiet in
that country no Government could be found who would
bring in remedial measures; therefore he voted to keep
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick quiet.—
(Hear, hear.) lie found that Irishmen anywhere else
were excellent and active members of society, but in
Ireland they were the contrary. Whatever tended to
convert them into quiet citizens was a benefit. What-
ever tended to make such agitators as the Hon. Member,
and some of those near him, silent until the Government
had
th eopinion,
permanent introducedame those
mercy
y improvement
measuresof
thewhich
country, Ny e r erequiredwas,
for
the
his
to the Hon. Member and the country;
and therefore he supported the measure, in the hope
that now, when the Irish people were quiet, the Govern-
ment would immediately introduce such measures.
Mr. NAPIER said it had not been his intention to
take part in the debate, because when be beard that
there were still seventeen clubs holding their secret
meetings in Dublin, he thought there was a necessity for
the measure, and he believed the Government would not
abuse the powers with which it invested them. But as a
humble representative of the Church of Ireland he felt
bound to take up the challenge of the Hon. Atember op-
posite, and to say that on the grounds of antiquity, of
scriptural truth, and of the excellence of its discipline,
that Church possessed pre-eminent claims. It went back
even to the days of St. Patrick himself—(A laugh)—
and, putting out of sight all higher considerations, the
maintenance of that church formed a fundamental article
of the Act of Union, and as long as that Act was held in
force the Church ought to be held inviolate. An addi-
tional reason why that Church should be respected was
to be found in the fact that in those districts where it
exercised the greatest influence, loyalty and good order
were prevalent. These were, he thought, good grounds
for his adherence to the national Church of Ireland.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL reminded the Hon. Member who
had just sat down, when he boasted of the loyalty of the
Protestant districts of Ireland, that there was incen-
diarism in Ulster. With respect to the Church of Ire-
land, he must say that the speech seemed exceedingly
inappropriate. The debate was not about the Church of
Ireland, but the Habeas Corpus Act, and for his own
part he could not see the relevancy of the Hoe. Gentle-
man's observations. With respect to the speech of the
Hon. Member for Montrose, he gave the Hon. Member
all credit for his past exertions for Ireland, but he could
not congratulate him on his present conduct. He now
said that he was prepared to take away the liberties of
Ireland, and what was the statesmanlike reason he gave
for that course? Why, to put him (Mr. J. O'Connell)
down. If anything could give him an influence in Ire-
land which at present he did not possess, it would be the
singling of him out, as had been done by the Honourable
Member, for persecution individually. The Honourable
Member said he wished to remove difficulties out of the
way, and yet he refused the petty grant of 50,0001. to
save destitute Irishmen from starvation. Such was the
course of this friend of Ireland in the past tense.—(Hear,
hear.) With regard to the remarks of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Nottingham, he had to complain that that Ho-
nourable Member did not come forward to support
him in his opposition to the Bill when he stood almost
alone. He could, however, assure the Honourable Mem-
ber that it was his intention to resist the third reading,
and if it was carried, he would then support the amend
meut of the Noble Lord (Nugent), because every day
that could be struck from the duration of the Act would
be a mitigation of the oppression, and an abridgement of
the insult which it inflicted upon Ireland. With respect
to the Act itself he should at that stage refrain from
saying more. It was indeed of little use, after all be
had urged against it, for him to detain the House. He
would merely say, that never was there a more uncon-
stitutional measure brought forward upon more paltry
and indefensible grounds than this Act. During the
sixteen years that he had bad the hononr of a seat in
Parliament, he never felt more a slave than on Friday
last, when the rote of 50,000/. was discussed for

I the relief of Ireland. Was it not a stain
lon :that House, that such a measure should
have taken three nights to be discussed, and that such
foul epithets were applied to Irishmen in the hour
of their need and destitution ? They now had their
Coercion Bill passed, and he asked where was their re-
medial measures ? The 50,0001. grant would soon be
expended, and what then was to be done with the people
of Ireland ? He asked this in the name of Heaver and
of humanity. Let the House earnestly address itself to
the great question of saving the lives of the perishing
people, and ,they would forget all their past governmen-
tal tyranny and despotism. If they legislated in a spirit
of humanity and justice, they would hear little in future
of a repeal of the Union.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said he had ab-
stained from supporting any of the amendments
proposed at the stages of the Bill, because he be-
lieved that so violent an attack on the constitutional
privileges of the country could not be amended. No
case had been made out to justify the imposition of so
despotic a Bill, and he could not refrain from saying,
that the charge made against the English Radical
party in that House by the Hon. Member for Cork, was
well founded, and had not been repelled by the Hon.
Member for Montrose. It was too bad that the rights of
a whole people were to be attacked, from an apprehen-
sion of one individual embarking in an agitation for re-
peal, which could not be carried on to the same extent
that it was years ago.—(Hear, hear.) He opposed the
Bill on principle, as one that could not permanently
tranquillise the country or ameliorate its condition. It
had been said that the province of Ulster was tranquil
because of its Protestantism; but the circumstances of
that district of Ireland should be taken into considera-
tion, and the fact not overlooked that they enjoyed a
fixity of tenure in the soil, and received remuneration
for whatever improvements they effected. He corcluded
by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six
months.

Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion.
Thy' House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading ll7
Against it 23

Majority for the third reading
The Bill wail then read a third time.

-94

On the motion that the Bill do pass,
Lord NUGENT rose to move the amendment of which
he had given notice, namely, ito substitute the words
" first of June" for the words " first day of September"
in the first clause. He had voted in favour of this Bill
in its several stages, because he did not consider himself
justified in withholding his vote from a measure of state
necessity such as the Government had declared the pre-
sent to be, but he wished to restrict the operation of
the Act to the Ist of June instead of allowing it to re-
main in force until the Ist of September. During the
ensuing six months Parliament would be sitting and
would be competent to deal with any necessity that
might arise; but he appealed to Hon. Members on all

sides of the House whether it was advisable to prolong
the Act until a period when Parliament having sat six
months would have to deal with so important a question

at the very end of the session. The Government ought
not to call upon Parliament to suspend for a moment
. .

longer than was necessary those statutes w hich more than
any others on the statute-book formed the security fur

thii rights of the subject. lie agreed with the Govern-
ment that what Ireland wanted was repose, hut the

House could not look for the re-establishment of a sa-

tisfactory and permanent state of repose undor the
operations of the pains and penalties of this 'unsure.
He would shorten the term of the extraordinary powers

demanded by the Government, because he was not
without a suspicion that by so doing the House would
hasten the preparation of the remedial measures which
the Government would bring forward. Ho entirely
agreed with those who held that the personal character
of the present Lord• Lieutenant of Ireland had nothing
whatever to do with the question then before the House,
and he thought the Government were not taking a high
tone, when they sought to bolster up a measure like that
by pronouncing an eulogium upon the character of Lord
Clarendon. The question before the House was one
which involved a highly important principle, and he
hoped that a majority of that House would agree with
him in refusing the powers which the Government now
sought.

Colonel THOMPSON rose to second the amendment,
and in doing so he begged to observe, that those who
supported the Government in the preceding stages of
the Bill were placed in such a position, that they had
no alternative but to vote for the whole measure or else
lie under the suspicion of being disposed to bind tht•
hands of the Government at a moment of great danger
and uncertainty. With rebellion in Ireland, they could
not adopt any course the tendency of which would be to
weaken the hands of the Executive authority: they
therefore took the course of not restraining the Ministers
of the Crown with regard to thosa powers which were
necessary for carrying on efficiently the government of
Ireland. But in so voting with the responsible advisers
of the Queen, he, and those who thought with him,
wished to demonstrate that they were anxious not to
permit the Executive to enjoy any power one jot beyond
that which the exigency of the case rendered abso-

lutely necessary. :Ile conceived the powers to be
necessary, and he consented the more readily to
grant them inasmuch as he had confidence in those
to whom such powers were to be intrust ,d. The
case would he different if authority so extensive
were to be intrusted to men like Jeffreys or Claver-
house, but in the manner in which similar powers had
already been exercised he perceived a strong pledge that
they would in future be moderately used. Stil!, though
the proceedings of the Government might thus be au.
thenticated, he saw no reason why there should not be a
limitation to three months, at the end of which period
the Government might ask for a renewal of the authority
with which this measure invested them, provided they

could then prove, as they now had proved, that there ex-
isted a necessity for such a suspension of the Constitu-
tion. It had been hinted that if the conduct of the

Chartists, or any other body of men, rendered such a
measure necessary for England, he and his friends would
find themselves placed in an embarrassing dilemma. He
believed, that there was little hazard of their being called
upon to contend with any such difficulty; but, it a ne-
cessity of that kind arose, he presumed that lion. Mem-
bers near him would not be unwilling to clothe Govern-
went with the necessary powers. He thanked God,
however, that no probability existed that any such neces-
sity should speedily arise. But, be that as i; might, he
thought upon the present occasion Hon. Members might
fairly be said to support the Government, even though
they should vote in favour of the proposed amendment.;
Sir G. GREY said, he did not understand the force of
many of the observations which ho had heard from those
who contended that the operation of the Bill ought to be

redaced from six months to three. The Hon. Gentle-
man who spoke last admitted that he was very strongly
c2n,ineed of the necessity of passing the measure then
Wore them; and he seemed to be equally convince.]
with the Government that the state of Ireland required
such an Act; but surely such opinions as those formed
no reason at all for assenting to the proposition of the
Noble Lord opposite. Certainly some arguments had
been advanced on the opposite side; but the proposition
of the Noble Lord went far beyond the force of those
arguments. He did not forget how earnestly it had
bceu contended that it was preposterous to give six
months' duration to the Bill while Parliament was tocon•
time its session during the whole of that period. Buz
Members, he trusted, would bear in mind that if a Bill
like that were to remain open to discussion from the time
Parliament assembled until it was prorogued, their
would be no opportunity for the consideration of reme-
dial measures for Ireland. Again, with respect to the
duration of the measure, he might ba permitted to ask,
was it not much better than the Bill that was passed in
1822 ? In the present year the sitting of Parliament
began in the month of February, the duration of the
Bill was limited to six months, and thus did they pro-
pose to follow the shorter precedent. Tho House had,
by repeated divisions, 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 this 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 I
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

166
..-155

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.
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
in ening 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 mo
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., do 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 of 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, that it
contains in it everything included in the oath of supree
macy, and that the oath of suprem tcy 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 tho Pope, or any authority of the
see of Rome, may be deposed or murthered by their
subjects or any other whatsoever."
(" Hear, hoar," 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 sur:h a doctrine—(Hear,
bear)--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 scats 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.—(Hear, hear.) All that I imagine
we declare by these words is, that there is no lawful juris-
diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,
ecclssiastical or spiritual, residing in the Pope or any
other power in this country. 1 believe, however, that
those who entertain the objections I have mentioned it-
derstand that we affirm that no person has any jurisdic-
tion, pro.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 ef 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
.nithority. 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, hath or 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 Popo 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.—(Dear, 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 thorn 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 elle-
giana© or obedience to any of them."

Such is the solemn declaration made by every Member
upon entering this or the other House of Parliament;
and let us see how this declaration arose. When the
home of Hanover came to this country, and when George
the First was the King of these realms, there was a Prince
professing to derive his title from James 11.,
and cslling himself Jame; 111., who claimed the
crown of these realms as a right. There was also a party,
and a very considerable party, who considered his claim
superior to that of the King upon the throne; and Par-
liament thought it necessary that every person who took
his seat in either House of Parliament should not only
take the oath of allegiance, but should disclaim and ab-
jure the title of the person who pretended to be King of
these realms. In the course of time James 111., as he
called himself died, and the claim descended to his sons.
Parliament then, in 1766, altered the terms in which the
abjuration was taken, and instead of requiring and abju-
ration of the title of James 111., they altered the form to
that in Which it now stands, and required an
abjuration of the descendants of the person who pre-
tended to be James 111. This was no doubt as ra-
tional a proceeding as could well be. In the first place,
with a Pretender claiming the throne, and with a great
party ready to support him, and in the first year of
George I. even in arms on his behalf, Parliament, for its
security, called upon every Member of Parliament to ab •
lure the title of the Pretender. When he died, the Par-
liament again called upon every one who should take
his seat to abjure the the title of those who succeeded
the Pretender as claimants of the crown. But what is
the case now ? Since 1807 there has been no de-
scendant of the person calling himself James 111., who
claimed the throne of England. Cardinal York, I think,
died in that year; and from that time there has not
been the least necessity for the abjuration still imposed.
Therefore, to require Members by a solemn oath to ab-
jure the title of the descendants of a person who has not
left any descendants—to abjure the title of a family
which does not now exist—becomes a sort of mockery of
our proceedings—(Hear, hear)—and, being now brought
under the notice of the House, I think the
practice will not be any longer continued.—
(Hear.) Every one knows that if there is any pretence
to a title to the Crown it must be in the descendants of
Charles 1., not in the descendants of James IL But the
title of the Queen is now so perfectly well established
that I think it would be only necessary to declare ad-
herence to the settlement of the Crown in the present
family, and that it is not necessary to abjure any foreign
prince—upon whom it might be difficult to fix—who
might derive his title from James 11. The oath of abjura-
tion ends with these words;---" And I do make this re-
cognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and
promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true
faith of a Christian."—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, with
respect to these words, I argued last year that they
ought not to be continued with regard to persons of the
Jewish religion who might claim seats in this House,
having been elected by any body of constituents. Ido
not mean to go at any length into that argument on the
present occosion. I own it appears to me, after the
debates which have taken place, and the able
speeches which were made against the proposition
I formerly submitted to the House, that the objec-
tions resolved themselves into this—that the Jewish
subjects of her Majesty are of a different opinion in
matters of religion and of conscience from Roman Ca-
tholics and Protestants, and that therefore they ought
to be excluded from this House. Now, Sir, I must again
maintain that you have no claim or right to exclude
any subjects of this realm from Parliament, except upon
the ground that some of their doctrines or opinions are
such as to make them unfit to be Members of this House,
and incompetent to perform the duties of legislation.—
(Hear, hear.) For instance, with regard to the Roman
Catholics, it was alleged—l will not say now whether
truly or falsely—that they were persons with a divided
allegiance, that they owed allegiance to the Pope, which
made their allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms
wholly imperfect, that they never would be satisfied
with allegiance to a Protestant sovereign, or observe
good faith towards a Protestant Government, but that
they would be constantly attempting to overturn that
Government and to give the Roman Catholic religion
supremacy in this country. I will not enter into the
merits of that allegation ; but, if it were true—if
such a case were proved—it would be a good
and sufficient reason for excluding Roman Catholics
from this House.—(Hear, hear.) So again with regard
to the exclusion of the Protestant Dissenters, not from
this House, but from certain public offices, it was alleged
that they would use the powers of office for the destruc •
tion of the Established Church of these realms, and
that if once admitted to office there could be no securiiy
for the Established Church, but that they would never
cease their endeavours to subvert and destroy that in-
stitution. This was an allegation of considerable
weight when the question was whether Dissenters
should be relieved from civil disabilities ; but with
regard to the Jews no man can venture to say that
there is anything in their opinions that would be hostile
to the constitution of this country, or that they would
use any power they possessed for the purpose of destroy-
ing or injuring the constitution, still less of endangering
the monarchy. If this be so, it comes to be a pure and
unmitigated case of persecution.—(Hear.) The denial
of privileges is persecution;—persecution of the same
nature as the violent persecutions which in former days
were carried on by the faggots and the axe.—(Hear
hear.) There is this peculiar feature in the present case
—that the persons against whom your exclusion is di-
rected enjoy the utmost safety and security in this coun-
try. Attempt to-morrow to exclude the Roman Catho-
lics, and you have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of people in a
state of bitter discontent and exasperation. Exclude
the Protestant Dissenters, and you have some 3,000,000
of persons in this United Kingdom who are at once
estranged from your constitution and your laws. But
exclude the Jews, and you know perfectly well you are
safe in that exclusion, and that you may enjoy all the
triumph and all the pleasure of your persecution with-
out exposing yourselves to any danger from their discon •
tent.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I say, therefore, that
this exclusion, after the admission of Roman Catholics
and Protestant Dissenters, against whom there were
plausible, though I think by no means sufficient reasons,
is peculiarly odious and inexcusable. I will now state
to the House what I propose as an amendment of these
oaths. I have already stated, that with regard to
the Roman Catholics—that matter having been so
recently settled, and there being no sufficient reason for
a disturbance of that settlement—l propose to make no
alteration whatever. With regard to other subjects of
her Majesty, I propose that there should be a general
oath to be taken; and I should here say that I have
taken nearly all the words of an oath penned by a Com-
mission which was appointed, and which made a report
in 1845, which report was presented to Lord Lyndhurst.
The oath then proposed to be taken by Members of Par-
liament is as nearly as possible that which I now submit
to the consideration of the House. It is—
"l, A. 8., swear that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will
maintain the succession of the Crown, as established by
an Act intituled 'An Act for the further limitation of
the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties
of the subjects;' and that I do not believe that the Pope
of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person,
state, or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal
or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this
realm; and that I will defend, to the utmost of my power,
the settlement of property within this realm, as esta-
blished by the laws; and I do make this recognition,
declaration, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly,
upon the true faith of a Christian.—So help me God."
I propose that that should be the general oath taken by
Members of Parliament, but in conformity with certain
Acts which have been passed, I propose that in the oath
administered to Jewish subjects, members of the Jewish
persuasion, the words " on the true faith of a Christian"
shall be omitted.—(Hear, hear.) Now, it might be a
question whether the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" should be at all continued in the oath; and I
own that if we required any security from this oath, I
cannot think that a barrier which did not exclude such
men as Bolingbroke, Gibbon, and Wilkes from Parlia-
ment, can be any barrier whatever—(Hear, hear)—but I
am aware that advantage would be taken of the omission
of these words, to say that an attempt was made pur-
posely to admit infidels and unbelievers, and that was the
effect of the measure. I therefore continue these words
in the oath. I leave, then, the Roman Catholics on the
footing they now are; I propose that other subjects
of her Majesty shall take the oath I have read, an
oath taken originally from the report of the Commis-
sioners of 1845; and I propose further that when any
person of the Jewish religion is asked to take this oath,
the words " on the true faith of a Christian" shall be
omitted.—(llear, hear.) By this means I think the
measure of religious liberty in this country will be com-
subjects of her Majesty, and plete. All persons being
inhabiting these realms, shall have the power to be
elected Members of this House, and of taking their seats
as representatives of the people by whom they are
elected.—(Hear, hear.) The people will thereby acquire
that which they ought to bare, the full right of choos-
ing any person it may be their will to choose, otherwise
properly qualified for a seat in this House.—(Hear,
hear.) There will be no longer the stain of religious
exclusion and intolerance; and the words of William
111., who learned the lesson of religious liberty in the
country from which he came, that " conscience is
God's province," snail be carried into effect by the oath
t) be taken by Members of this House.—(Hear, hear.)
While we shall no longer bear the reproach of exclud-
ing any persons on account of their religious faith from
the privileges of being Alembers of this House—(Hear)
—we shall complete that great edifice which has been
the boast of statesmen, but with regard to which some
have endeavoured to show that there is danger in throw-
ing open its doors too widely. My belief, however, on
the contrary, is, that whether you examine the precepts
of Christianity or the maxims of the Constitution, it is
your duty, it is your policy, to throw open those doors
as widely as possible, and place no religious bar of ex-
clusion against any class of persons professing any par-
ticular religious persuasion.—(Hear, bear.) And in the
belief that what I now propose to you will clear away
ambiguities, will remove those parts of the oath that are
unnecessary, and make your whole system defensible
and justifiable in the eyes of the people of this country
and of the world, I ask this House to resolve itself
into a Committee to consider the oaths taken by its
Members.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN regarded this as a question that
ought to be discussed and decided with great delibera-
tion. With regard to the oath of abjuration, he cer-
tainly thought it fairly open to consideration by the
House ; and, for one, he would not resist the Noble
Lord in his proposal for going into Committee, with a
view to its full revision. He wished it to be understood,
however, that in consenting to this first stage of the
measure proposed by the Noble Lord, so as to enable
the House to have distinctly before it what that measure
really was, he protested against its being supposed that
he adopted tho principle on which he had recommended
it to the House. He would not discuss the question
now ; but he did not see, so far as regarded the
Act of Supremacy, that any reason had been shown
why an alteration should be made. Tho principle
of the change proposed he was not prepared to

sanction ; but the most important part of the Noble
Lord's speech was that which related to the admis-
sion of Jews to Parliament. And, here he must say.
he saw no reason to alter those opinions which he
had expressed last session, as to the inexpediency of
that proposal. He then said, and he repeated now,
that the admission of the Jests would be considered
as derogatory to the character of the country, while it
would diminish the authority of that House ; that it
would be productive of serious consequences to the
people at home, and would operate with still greater
force on the extension of religion abroad.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord said the exclusion of any party from
Parliament on account of religion was persecution ; but
the Noble Lord, in this very measure, imposed that on
Protestants and Catholics, and indeed on every other
class of her Majesty's subjects, which he did not impose
on Jews, all others being required to take the oath " on
the true faith of a Christian." In short, religious
liberty appeared to be granted solely to the Jews, while
it was denied to all others. He would not oppose the
House going into Committee, but he hoped they would
well consider the proposal now made to them, which he
believed to be one that would be derogatory to that
assembly, while it would have the effect of diminish-
ing the sense of obligation felt by those who were called
upon to bind themselves by the sacredness of an oath.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought no one would suppose that
those who protested against the Noble Lord's proposition
last year could be conciliated by the measure now
brought forward, and he must say that even at that first
stage of the measure he was prepared to divide the
House against it, if it was the pleasure of any Member
to go into the lobby along with him.—(Hear, hear.)
He must confess that to his ears the proposal of the
Noble Lord with reeard to the admission of the Jews
was exceedingly offensive.—(Hoar.) The Jews were to
be admitted to that House by omitting the words " on
the true faith of a Christian;" and because he could utter
the words "So help me God."—(Hear, bear.) He
must say that it appeared to be a trick, a subterfuge, by
which the Jew was to be admitted to that House. He
was to be accommodated at the expense of an insult to
Him whom Christians adored as their Saviour and their
God—(Hear, hear)—for every one must know that when
a Jew used the words " So help me God," he had no
respect whatever to Him whom Christians adored as
their God and Saviour,—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord spoke of there being no danger in admitting the
Jews because they were so few in number; but there
was no safety in taking any step by which they might
provoke the Divine displeasure.—(Hear, hear.) He re-
peated that if any Member was disposed to view the
matter as he did, he would resist the very first step in
this measure by dividing the House.
Mr. LAW had seen no cause to change the opinion he
had formed against the measure last session. The
Noble Lord spoke of its being odious and hateful op-
pression to exclude the Jews; but this came with bad
grace from the Noble Lord as the colleague of Baron
Rothschild in the representation of the city of London.
In proportion as the subject was one of the greatest mo-
ment he asked the Noble Lord not to press the House to
resolve itself into Committee within half an hour of its
being informed of the nature of the measure. He sought
time to consider the form of an oath which he conscien-
tiously believed was not six hours old. It was his con-
viction that when the Noble Lord rose from his bed in
the morning he bad not determined what was to be the
shape of his measure. It was necessary the Noble Lord
should explain what he meant by speaking of the re-
moval of all religious disabilities, and then limiting his
measure to the case of the Jews.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL would support the motion, but
I regretted that when the Noble Lord was dealing with
this subject he had not introduced a uniform oath, which
members of all religious persuasions might be able to
take. There were words in the oath taken by Roman
Catholics which were made a subject of annoyance to
them. They had been accused of tampering with their
oaths. If those bitter bickerings should be revived by
those who had imposed the oath, he for one would at
once acquiesce in their decision, and resign his seat in
that House.
Mr. BANKES expressed his disappointment at the
silence of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) on this occasion,
whom he had certainly expected to have heard speak,
more especially as the colleague of that Right Hon.
Gentleman was at this moment confined to his bed by
indisposition. If they had agreed to the proposition now
submitted by the Noble Lord, he could have been ready,
on the first occasion, to bow to their authority; but he
was now bound to say that, opposed as he was to the
principle of the measure, if the Hon. Member for Kent
should think fit to divide the House, ho (Mr. Bankes)
would divide with him on the question of principle. It
was true the Noble Lord did not put forward the prin-
ciple as he did last year, but involved it with other poli-
tical matters of inferior importance. This he hardly
thought worthy of the high character of the Noble Lord.
The oath, as now proposed, afforded ample security for
the succession to the throne, which was not required,
because that security was to be found in the hearts of
the people; it also affirmed the rights of property; but
there was omitted from the oath that provision which
was included in the Roman Catholic oath, by which
the persons taking it solemnly abjured any intention
to subvert the present Church Establishment.—[Lord J.
RussELL—They are not in the present oath taken by
Members who aro not Catholics.] No, because when
that oath was framed none but members of the Estab
blished Church were Members of Parliament. Those
words, therefore, were unnecessary. But the moment
persons were admitted into this assembly who were not
adherents of the Established Church they should, by
oath, be bound not to disturb that Church.
Mr. GLADSTONE—After the allusion which has
been made to me by my Hon. and Learned Friend, I
cannot shrink at least from stating my opinion on this
subject,—(Hear, hear.) So far as regards the main pur-
pose which is contemplated by the Noble Lord, lam
bound to say, in the words of my Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge,
that my opinions upon this subject have undergone no
change, unless it be that they have been strengthened
and confirmed by reflection during the interval that has
elapsed since the last discussion of the question.—
(Cheers.) I am still deliberately convinced that the
civil and political claim of the Jew to the discharge of
civil and political duties ought not in justice to be
barred, and cannot beneficially be barred, by a difference
of his religion from ours.—(Cheers.) In reference to
what has fallen from my Honourable Friend the Mem-
ber for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), I must say, with all due,
sincere, and cordial respect for him, that with my
views, in voting for the admission of the Jews
into the Legislature, we are not abandoning our
duty to the Almighty—(Hear, hear)—but are acting in
strict fulfilment of that duty by giving effect to the prin-
ciple of natural justice.—(Cheers.) But, although this
is undoubtedly the main purpose which the Noble Lord
has in view, still I would put it to the House whether
there are not sufficient grounds for going into this Com-
mittee, even independently of the main purpose.—(Hear,
hear.) The secondary question which the Noble Lord
has introduced to us, respecting the alteration of the oath
which is taken by ourselves, although it is undoubtedly
of inferior importance as compared with that great con-
stitutional question which is raised in regard to the Jews,
yet it is not in itself a question undeserving of attention;
and I do, therefore, put it seriously to the House
whether the alteration which the Noble Lord is desirous
of making in our oath is not an improvement—and an
improvement of weight sufficient to justify even those
who are most opposed to the proposal in respect to the
Jews in giving their assent to the proposition that the
House go into Committee?—(bear, hear.) I think we
must all feel that an oath of this description, taken in
public by large masses of men, under associations not
very favourable to the presence of the most solemn and
religious feelings, has a tendency to degenerate the whole
proceeding into one of mere formality; and it must,l think,
be admitted, that that tendency becomes Aggravated in
proportion as the oath is prolonged beyond the necessity
of the case by the introduction of irrelevant matter. That
in purging from this oath such irrelevant matter, and in
excludiug from it that which has now come to have no
rational meaning, we are pursuing a course with regard
to the legality of the oath that must be an improvement,
there can scarcely be any difference of opinion; and an
improvement which is by no means insignificant. It is
upon tha highest authority that we are told that our
words ought to be few in all those solemn acts which
have peculiar reference to the Deity. I cannot but say,
on reviewing these oaths and comparing the number of
words with the purpose which the oaths have in view,—
I cannot but say that they will admit of abbreviation, not
only with advantage, by bringing them into a more lucid
distinct, and intelligible form, but likewise with the ad-
vantage of bringimg them much nearer that standard of
propriety according to which all oaths having a solemn
end in view ought to be unquestionably framed.
I therefore must express a hope that as the pur-
pose of the Noble Lord in this respect is quite sufficient
in itself to justify the House in entering into Committee,
although inferior in comparison to the other object con-
templated by the Noble Lord, the House will assent to

the 'proposal, as they cannot thereby be committed as to
the vote they may be disposed to give with regard to the
principle of this measure. With respect to the plan of
the Noble Lord, I will not enter into any detailed argu-
ment. But I cannot help expressing my own satisfaction
to find that it differs in one most important particular
from the scheme which was announced in some of the
journals a few weeks ago. lam glad at finding that the
Noble Lord proposes to retain the words " upon the faith
of a Christian," in the oath to be taken by all Christians
in this House.—(hear, hear.) For, considering the so •
lemnity of the duties which we have here to perform, I
think it is right that we should approach the performance
of them under that sanction which is the most solemn
sanction to us. And although we purpose to act in com-
mon with the Jews, yet I think, in declining to deduct
anything whatever from the height of that standard by
which we fix in our own minds the solemn nature of the

duties we impose on ourselves, the Noble Lord has adopted
a course which must meet with universal approbation.
13ut I would venture to make a suggestion to the Noble
Lord with respect to a portion of the oath which he pro-
poses—a suggestion which I think is in the sensa of the
alterations which ho himself is about to advise. Re

proposes, as I understand-him, to-exclude the words
from the latter clause of the oath of supremacy in which
at present all Protestant members of the House declare
that " no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or po-
tentate huh or ought to have any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or
spiritual, within this realm;" but he proposes to sub-
stitute a declaration to be taken by all Protestants and
Jews hereafter, that no "foreign prince, prelate, person,
state, or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal
or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this
realm." Now, I would submit to the Noble Lord that
it would be an improvement on his prop.isition if he
omitted these words altogether.—(Hear, bear.) For
what reason is there that gentlemen who are not Roman
Catholics should be called upon to abjure the temporal
power and pre-eminence of the Pope within this
realm? There may be a justification for imposinc,
such a declaration upon Roman Catholics, because
there may be some among that body—it is at least a

conceivable case—that there may be Roman Catholics
now. as there have been in former times, who think that
the Pope may indirectly, but still really, be entitled to
temporal power and jurisdiction within this realm ; but
certainly it is impossible that this can be implied of any
human being except a Roman Catholic.—(Efear, hear.)
If this be so, then it appears to me that the principle
upon which the Noble Lord has proceeded of excluding
irrelevant and unnecessary matter from the oaths ought
to carry him as far as the point which I now contem-
plate, and to prevent him from calling upon gentlemen
who are not Roman Catholics—whether Protestants or
Jews—to abjure an opinion with respect to the tem-
poral power of the Pope which it is virtually impos-
sible they can entertain.—(Hoar, hear.) The Noble
Lord told us justly that such oaths were originally in-
troduced in the nature of a test, and not with a view
of giving greater solemnity to the discharge of our
duties or of laying down a higher standard of duty;
that they were introduced merely in the nature of a
test with the view of excluding certain parties. Now, it
certainly never can exclude one who is either a Protes-
tant or a Jew; but it does put into their mouths in a
solemn manner—when no words ought to be put there
except such as were of evident utility and necessity—
words which are neither necessary nor, so far as I can
perceive, useful for any purpose whatever. I think it
right to make this suggestion at the earliest stage. With
respect to the proposal which the Noble Lord contem-
plates, I beg to say that he shall have my support in its
various stages.—(Cheers.) I, of course, cannot under-
take to speak on behalf of my respected colleague, to
whom the. Hon. Member has referred.—(Laughter.)
With respect to the immediate proposal, I do hope that
Hon. Gentlemen will not debar the Noble Lord from
going into Committee to propose, in the first instance,
those alterations in the oaths which undoubtedly go to
improve them, and which there is a fair reason for sup-
posing will meet with the unanimous concurrence of the
House.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE felt the deepest objection to the
proposal of the Noble Lord. It appeared, however, with
respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for
the University of Oxford, that his only objection was that
it did not go far enough—(Hear)—because it retained
a declaration against the temporal power of the Pope.
He must say that to his mind the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman threw a curious light upon his
general support of the measure.—(Hear.) He (Mr.
Newdegate) had a proposal to make to the Noble
Lord, and that was that he would consent to the ad-
journment of the House, in order that they might have
the advantage of knowing how the resolution now stood,
for he was not sure whether the terms of it had not
been altered since the Noble Lord had spoken.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord had proposed to retain the
words "on the faith of a Christian in the case of Pro-
testants, and to omit them in the case of the Jews. He
(Mr. Newdegate) thought that, if struck out in any
case, they ought to be struck out in all. Christians did
not specially need that test to secure the observance of
their oath, but, as they prized them highly as a general
test in the case of a Christian assembly of a Christian
nation, they would defend thorn to the last.—(Hear.)
He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND believed that there was not
much difficulty in the mind of any gentleman present
respecting a desire to do natural justice to the Jews ;
but the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had
gone further than that, for it seemed that, in order to do
natural justice to the Jews, the House must go back to
natural religion.—(Hear, hear.) There seemed to him
(Mr. Drummond) to be considerable discrepancy be-
tween the speech of the Noble Lord and the motion with
which he had concluded ; and he entertained, therefore,
some doubt as to what was the proper course to be taken
on the present occasion. He admitted that there was
much in the oath as at present taken that would be very
much better left out—(Hear, hear) ; but, as far as
he understood the question, it really was nothing but
the old Jew Bill of last session revived ; that, whatever
might be the overture or prelude with which it was in-
troduced, the measure itself was simply a rechauffee of
the old Bill. In that case he should vote against it, as
he had done before; but if the Noble Lord really desired
to go into Committee on the subject, he thought it a
matter worthy of consideration whether the House
should divide upon the present occasion .—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked the Noble Lord whether
he would be kind enough to read the oath again, and also
the resolution which he intended to propose?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the fiillowing was the
resolution lie intended to propose:—" That it is expe-
dient to alter the oaths required to be taken by the sub-
jects of her Majesty, not professing the Roman Catholic
religion, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Par-
liament, and to make provision in respect of the said
oaths for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing
the Jewish religion." Upon this resolution he intended
to bring in a Bill. (The Noble Lord then read the pro-
posed oath, which was in precisely the same terms as
those already given in his introductory address.)
Mr. WALPOLE asked whether the Noble Lord, sup.
posing he were allowed to go into Committee, would
consent to do so merely pro forma, in order that he
might take the resolution, and take the discussion on a
future day?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied, that if he took that
course he should deprive himself of the opportunity
which he wished to have of now laying the measure be-
fore the House; but he begged to say that he did not
wish the Committee to affirm anything at present beyond
the general terms of the resolution he had read.—(Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE wished, in that case, to be allowed
to say a few words. According to the statement of the
Noble Lord, the House had two distinct propositions
before it,—the one to make an alteration in the mere
form of the oath, and the other to make a substantial
alteration, which involved a fundamental principle.
Now, he agreed with tho merely formal proposition of
the Noble Lord, but he entertained strong objections to
the substantial alteration—(Hear, hear)—and he consi-
dered that it was hardly fair in the Noble Lord to de-
scribe the opposition to that part of the measure as a
case of unmitigated persecution.—(Hear.) Ho must
also observe, that when the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)
put the question upon the ground of natural justice, it
was well to consider whether there had not always been
a broad distinction between political rights and political
duties. He wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to con-
sider whether the right which all persons in this country,
whether Jews or Christirns, had to the protection of the
law necessarily gave them those political privileges
which involved duties, which duties could only, accord-
ing to the principles of the constitution, be undertaken,
and which he thought he could satisfactorily prove could
only be performed, by those who could take the existing
oath. He would not go into the general question of the
measure, nor say more in addition to the few observa-
tions with which he would conclude, and which he felt
as strongly as those he had already addressed to the
House. He had hoped that the Noble Lord would not
have thought it necessary to renew that discussion, and
that he would have postponed the question, which had
been fully discussed and deliberately settled only nine
months ago in the very same form as that in which it
was then submitted to the House ; and he felt that
the more strongly because he had always understood it
was a wise policy on the part of the Government not to
hazard on slight grounds any collision or disagreement
between the two Houses of Parliament—(Cheers)—and
it was their still wiser policy not in any way to offend or
do violence to the religious convictions of the great mass
of the people.—(Cheers.) But these considerations had,
in his humble judgment, been most unhappily disre-
garded in the present proposition, for no one could doubt,
if the Noble Lord carried his resolution, that he would

at all events run the risk of that disagreement with the
other House which was so much to be deprecated, and
that if the NoWe Lord had at all inquired into the sub-
ject during the recess, he would have found it a painful
shock to the feelings and opinions of the great mass of
the country--he did not mean the ignorant and unintel-
ligent, but some of the best and ablest men, who re-
garded the proposition in no other light than that of a
national violation of Christian principle.—(The O'Gor-
man Mahon laughed.) Notwithstanding the laugh of the
lion. Gentleman—(the O'Gorman Mahon laughed again,
on which there were cries of " Order")—he could assure
bins he could quote sonic of the very ablest men in the
kingdom, to whose works he had referred, who regarded
it not only as he had already said, but still further ai a
national renunciation of our Christian faith.—(Cheers.)
If the religious convictions of men in this country were
to be disregarded, instead of its being an unmitigated
case of persecution against the Jews, it was much to be
apprehended—as that laugh appeared to indicate—that
the only persecution which would take place would be
one against those who belonged to the Church of Eng-
land.—(Cheers.)

Lord.J. RUSSELL—I had hoped that as the House,
after repeated discussions, agreed last year to that which
the Hon. Gentleman has stated to be the only point on
which difference could arise this year—namely, the re-
moval of Jewish disabilities—l should have been allowed
to introduce the Bill, and that the discussion would have
been reserved to some stage of the measure in future.—
(Hear, hear.) All I can do at present is to propose that
the House shall now go into Committee. If the House
is pleased to go into Committee I shall then propose the
resolution, and put it into the bands of the Chairman.
If debate should then arise, and if the Hon. Gentleman,
or any other Hon. Member of the House, thinks ne-
cessary to raise a discussion on that resolution, or to
make that the question on which they arenthen certainly
prepared to
resist the proposition I shall make,. I shall
discussion at pro-
propose not to go further with thattadcemuan has,
sent.—(Hear, hear.) The llon. Go
this question
how-
ever, gone further than this mere proposition, and has
expressed his surprise that I should stir
rn
after it had been moved, and, as
But,bo
.s settled,
not
nine months ago.—(Hear,
edhaear.)
dstoothdouthgehteonisttihtuntpioption:df
the way in which I have understood
this country.—(Cheers.)
regarding
the Roman Catholics—a
that the question
the Roman Catholic
question taking away some
of
disabilities—had been rejected in the other House of
Parliament—(Hear, hear)—and yet it does not appear
that the Douse of Commons thought the decision
of the House of Lords on that occasion an irre.•
vocable and irreversible veto.—(Cheers.) The question
was again brought forward,. and the House of Lords ut
last passed the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics.
I myself took part inf a measure of the greatest impor-
tanee—the Reform Bill. It was carried by a large ma-
jority in this house, but the House of Lords rejected it.
Why, if there is any truth in the Hon. Gentleman's doc-
trine. we ought then to have sat down contentedly as if
the question of reform was settled—(Hear, hear)—and
that there should be no reform in Parliament, and
we should not have ventured under the Administration of
Earl Grey again to disturb the question.—(hear, hear.)
I say, with respect to this question, that though it has
been rejected by the House of Lords, yet, with all due
deference to the Hon. Gentleman, we may ask them to
reconsider it, and that they, in the exercLe of their un-
doubted right, may reconsider it, and may give it an
affirmative or negative.—(Hear, hear.) But to say that
the decision of the House of Lords should be binding for
ever, and that we should never bring it forward again—
that is a proposition which seems to me untenable, which I

T N firil

cannot at all admit, and which would reverse the whole
practice of this House.—(Cheers.) Having said thus
much in justification of the course I have pursued, I
have only to add lam sorry if any words--I have used
should have seemed offensive to any Hon-. Gentleman in
the House. I certainly used the words according to my
h own opinion with respect to general policy of the
measure, and did not wish to give offence to any Hon.
Member. I have now only to oppose the motion for the
adjournment, which I hope will not be pressed.
The motion for adjournment was withdrawn by Mr.
NE WDEGATE.
The House then divided on the--snare-erection, when
there appeared—
For going into Committee ....-.-214
Against it ... 1.11
Majority --- 103
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheering.
The House then went into Committee; and Lord J
RUSSELL moved his resolution.
Mr. G. BANKES understood the Noble Lord to have
intimated that he did not wish to proceed further that
night than moving the resolution. The division had
been rather a surprise—(Laughter)--it was hardly ex-
pected that night. -
Lord J. RUSSELL certainly wished to proceed fur-
ther, but would not do so if the Hon. Member objected.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN re-
ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on
Friday.

ASSIZES AT BUCKINGHAM.
Mr. DU PRE obtained leave to bring ins Bill to re-
peal the 21st of George 11. for holding the Bucks Sum-
mer Assizes at Buckingham, and to authorise the ap-
pointment of a more convenient place for holding the
same.

IRISH FISHERIES.
On the motion of Mr. C. ANSTEY the following
gentlemen were appointed a Select Committee on the
Irish Fisheries :—Mr. Ansley, Sir William Somerville,
The O'Gorman Mahon, Sir Henry Winston Barron, Mr.
Stafford, Mr. Fagan, Mr. O'Flaherty, Sir Perey Nugent,
Mr. Monsell, Mr. Alderman Humphery, Mr. Bourke,
Mr. Scully, Mr. Richard Fox, Mr. Grogan, and Mr.
Ormsby Gore (Sligo).
Mr. OSBORNE moved for returns respecting officers
at present serving on the staff of the army on home or on
foreign service in the capacity of general officers or
colonels on the staff; and respecting all officers appointed
to the colonelcies of regiments from January 1827, to
March 1848.—Ordered.
Colonel DUNNE moved for returns of the different
drainage works in Ireland.—Ordered.
Mr. C. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in the Annual
Enclosure Bill, in pursuance of the report of the Enclo-
sure Commissioners.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to emend the laws relating to the appointment of
Vice-Guardians of Unions in Ireland. The Object was
to give the Poor-law Commissioners power to continue
the guardians in office for a limited period—the 26th of
next September was the period named in the draught of
the Bill.
On the motion of Sir W. SOMERVILLE, Mr. G. A.
Hamilton was discharged from further attendance on the
Irish Poor-law Committee, and Mr. Napier was added to
the Committee.
On the motion of Mr. Bouvxaza the Committee upon
fees in courts of justice was re-appointed.
Sir W. BARRON obtained leave to introduce a Bill
for the more speedy trial and punishment of offenoes in
Ireland.
Captain BOLDERO begged to ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which
branch of the subject referred to them for inquiry the
Committee on the army and ordnance estimates would
first proceed?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,
that it was intended to proceed first with the ordnance
estimates. The Noble Lord the Member for Stamford
(tho Marquis of Granby) not being able to serve on the
Committee at present, and being anxious to be relieved
from the duty, it was proposed to substitute Colonel
Anson for the Noble Lord.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.
PLYMOUTH, FEB. 17.—Her Majesty's troop ship
Apollo, 8. was paid wages, and sailed yesterday, to take
troops from Portsmouth to Corfu.
Her Majesty's steam-vessel Centaur, 6, was paid
wages on Monday, and with the broad pennant of Com-
modore Arthur Fanshawe, C. 8., sailed on Tuesday for
the coast of Africa, touching at Madeira with mails.
She will relieve the Penelope, 16, Commodore Sir C.
Hotham.
Her Majesty's steamer Confianco arrived on Thursday
from Woolwich.
Her Majesty's steam-vessel Rattler was cotninissioned
on Wednesday by Lieutenant Godfrey, with &comple-
ment of 120 men, and is to be ready to take the March
mails to the coast of Africa.:
Her Majesty's sloop Racer, 12, is preparing to sail on
a survey of the Western Islands. A sunken rock, not
laid down in the charts, has been discovered there.
The Diligence transport is to take stores from the
Royal William victualling yard to Portsmouth and
Deptford, and the Adventure transport will call at this
port from Woolwich on her way to Rio Janeiro.
The Tortoise and Camel lighters arrived yesterday
from Dartmouth, having been employed in raising the
merchant schooner Mariner, which sunk at that port
with a cargo of Indian corn ; a hemp cable of nineteen
inches and a chain cable of 11 inches were broken during
the process.
The starboard bow of the 8-gun brig Heroine, which
was found defective and rotten, has been repaired during
the week.
Her Majesty's ship San Josef, 110, was remoted from
her moorings under the obelisk on Wednesday to be
broke❑ up. The shipwrights are to commence on the
Ist of March.

Light southerly winds and fine weather.
WOOLWICH, FEB. 111.—The Adventure, transport-
ship, Master-Commander Wellington, was towed dowu
the river yesterday from Deptford to the Downs by the
Monkey steam-vessel. The Adventure is under orders
to proceed to Rio Janeiro, South America.
The Janus, steam-vessel, Lieutenant-Commander
Powell, is under orders to leave Woolwich for Ports-
mouth and Gibraltar about the Ist of March.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
LIVERPOOL, FEL 19.
STOCK EXCILANGE.—The market for shares has been fiat to-day.
and prices are lower. The sales are—Birmingham and DlMler, 6%
p. ex int.—Caledonian, Preference, 7 per cent., 1 p.—Glasgow and
Ayr, 71. 1 Is. 3d.—Great Northern (A Shares), Deferred, 4% —Ditto
(h), 6 per cent., % dis.—Lancashire and Yorkshire (late Manchester
and Birmingham), Fifths, 2' dis.—Ditto, Halves (late Liverpool
and Bury), 6% dis.—London and North-Western, Fifths, 1%
Ditto, New Quarters, 6/. Is. 3d. p.—Ditto, Quarters (C), 4% P.--
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Eighths, 6%—Ditto, 101.
Preference, 11/. Bs. 9d.-3lidland Stock, 91—Ditto, NOT Half
Shares, 5F,, dis.—Newcastle and Carlisle, 110%—Scottish. Central.
21 ,—Slirewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester, 3% dis.—Shropshire
Union, 21. es. 9d. dis.—South-Eastern and Dover, No. 2,9% dim.—
Ditto, No. 4, Thirds, c.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N.
E. Purchase), 6 per cent. guaranteed, p.—Dutch Rhenish, Cl. 61.
9d. dis.— Rouen and Havre,
MANCHESTER, FEB. 19.
STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The sales arc—South-Eastern and Dover,
No. 3, 2*,i —Ditto, No. 4, 7%—Eastern Counties, 1134—Shropshire
Union, 2% dis.—Loudon and ,North-Western, I4l—Chester and
Birkenhead, 221. Shares, 8 dis.—Clitheroe. No. 1, s%—Grinarby, 291.
Shares, 11 1-16 c. dis.—Leeds, Fifths, 2% dis.—Ditto, Preferenco,'l
p.—North Staffordshire, 2q dis.—North British, Quarters,
Sheffield and Lincoln, 13% dis.

YORK, Fms. 17.1
STOOK EXCIIANGS.—The business transacted to-day was as fol-
lows:—Great Northern, 10/. 4s.—York, Newcastle, and terwiek
(Extension, No. I), 211. Gs. 3d.—Ditto, No. 2 (late New, Berwieks),,
211. Gs. 3d.—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), 9%.

THE LANDED GENTRY.—The " Alphabetical
Index " of 100,000 names of persona mentioned in
Burke's " Genealogical History of the Landed Gentry of
the United Kingdom," has just appeared, a production
altogether unique in the annals of publishing, and-form-
ing a most valuable adjunct to the history itself. The
great utility of this work to professional men can scarcely
be appreciated, considering the assistance it will afford
theta in their researches respecting the members of dif-
ferent families, heirs to property, &c. ; indeed, it Will
become as necessary an appendage as a directory in
every lawyer's office.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE ELEcTiosir.—LICHFIELD,-F.
Mownar.—The election of a Member to represent
,ini_
division of the county of Stafford in Parliament, in iliroom of Lord Ingestre, took place to-day. L
Lewis-
ham was the only candidate. A host of
friends were present. The writ aedanker, of Walsall,
having been read, Air. C. S. Forster, br,
an
address of sorae
the Noble Lord's
Bribery Act
the
immediately came forward, andafte
length to the meeting, conclude
person d
to
by proposing his Lord.
represent the Southern
Division of the county
ship as a fit and proper
eto Mayor of Wolverhampton, end one
of the greatest ironmas of Stafford in Parliament. Mr.
a
G. B. ThornaYer°'" tZ.rs of the district, seconded the
posed, Lord
nomination. No
duly elected, II: L •
Ilia Lordship
Lewisham was
the electors; after Which then briefly addressed
the
_.ll,
for his
a TOW of
ination. No other candidate being pro
High Sheriff for his conduct,
broke up. At the
and the meeting
proceedings a splendid luncheon Was provided at the
Lowisha
thanks was voted
. to tii
Swan Hotel. Lord tn presided, and about 110
gentlemen sat down to the entertainment.
D,Ani OF SIR THOMA.B BURNETT BART.—Sir
Thomas Burnett, the eighth Baronet, of' Lays, county
Aberdeen, died on the 16th instant, at Crathes Castle,
Kincardine, at the age of 61. Sir Robert 'u Lieute-
nant and Sheriff Principal of the shire of Kincardine,
and succeeded to the Baronetcy in January, 1837.
DEATH OF MR RICHARD HARLEY, OF THE SEA-
MEN'S HOSPITAL SOCIETY.—It is with sincere regret
that we have to announce the death of Mr. Harley, the
secretary of the Seamen's Hospital Society. Mr. Harley
has filled the office of Secretary and collector to this ex-
cellent institution from its first establishment, now
twenty-eight years ago, and has laboured moat zealously
and indefatigably in the advancement of its interests .and
in the promotion of its usefulness. In the death of Mr.
Harley the Seamen's Hospital Society have lost a most
valuable servant, and the seamen—for whose benefit the
society was instituted—a most faithful friend. We re-
gret to add that a large family of orphan children have
to deplore the loss of a kind father, whose integrity and
estimable character made him universally respected.
Shipping Gazette.
SOUTH AMERICA.—We have advises from 11:1181;
nab to the 17th ult. Some sugar plantations situated
near near Matanzas had been burnt down. We have late advises from Port-au-Prince. The Asratreunu'l"
ck at that
Con-
sul at Aux Cayes had been insulted aid
had gone from
meat. A French and British man-ef-ear place by one of the blacks, which caused great excite.that account. The
Port-au-Prince to Aux Cayes on
Government were making
former had returned.
take the Spanish part of
dplaced double guards at
the island. The authorities had guar
preparations to send troops to to
Port-au-Prince.
POOR-LAW INSPECTOR.—Mr.
of the Nenagh union, died on
J. Ds.EDA,TAHreovir
inspector A N OriiE R
Friday of ty-p'hus fever, caught in the discharge otitis
duties. Mr. Flanagan, a pour-law inspector in the
western provinces, was also dangerously ill of fuer.

11