The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-24 00:00:00

PRIVILEGE.

Mr. OSBORNE said he had to bring before the
Souse a question of privilege. lie said he knew but one
custom respecting the attendance of Members of the
House on Committees of the House. He had always un-
derstood those Committees were open to the attendance
of Members of Parliament during their deliberations. Re
understood that the members of the Irish Poor-law Coin.
mittee had come to a resolution to prevent the attend-
ance of Membe.rs of Parliament, who were not members
of the Committers, at the-deliberations of the Committee.
Under these circumstances he begged to know whether
they were jowled in Adopting Chit mine?

The SPEAKER said that, according to the
rules of the House, every Member of the House
was privileged to attend Select Committees of
the House, unless that Committee was a Committee
of Secrecy ; but during the deliberations of a
Committee it was in its power to order Members who
were present, but not on the Committee, to leave the
room ; and there had been instances where Members
had not left the room, and whore the Committee had
applied to the House to interfere to compel them. But
under other circumstances a Member had a perfect right
to attend. _ _

Mr. OSBORNE asked if he was to understand that
the Committee had the power to exclude him?
The SPEAKER said they had not unless they re-
ceived such powers from the House.
Mr. BRIGHT said that so far there had been
no evidence taken before the Committee ; and he
had always understood that whilst a Committee were
discussing the resolutions which were under their con-
sideration, and whilst they were dividing upon those
resolutions, Members had not the right to be in the
room. For himself, he (Mr. Bright) wished the line
had not been so strictly drawn.
Mr. OSBORNE said he begged leave to give notice
to the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Osborne) should go
down to the Committee during its sittings.
Sir J. YOUNG said he had understood that it had
been always the practice in Committees for Gentlemen
who were not members of the Committee to absent
themselves, when the Committee were deliberating, or
when a division was taking place.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Baronet has correctly
stated the fact.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said the course taken this
morning in the Irish Poor-law Committee had been only
the same course that had been taken since he had been a
member of any Committee of the House.
LEGAL EDUCATION.
Mr. EWART gave notice that on sa early day he
would put a question to the Attorney-General respecting
legal education.
NEAPOLITAN ARMY IN SICILY.
Mr. BANKES gave notice that he would, on Tuesday
next, move for copies of certain information received by
the Government respecting the Neapolitan army in
Sicily.
THE POOR REMOVAL ACT.

Captain PECHELL asked the Commissioner of Poor-
laws, whether in consequence of the recent decision in
the Court of Queen's Bench having upset the opinion
given by the law officers of the Crown upon the con-
struction of the Poor Removal Act, it is intended to
cancel the instructions (founded on that opinion)
issued to the boards of guardians on the 20th day of
October, 1246;4. and whether provision will be made
for the repayment to unions and parishes of the expenses
incurred by them respectively in the maintenance
of poor belonging to other parishes, whose relief
was withdrawn in consequence of those instructions.
The question was put in consequence of a communica-
tion:fromtthe guardians of the Gosport Union to those of
Brighton, which necessitated an application to the Poor-
law Commissioners, requesting their advice as to how
those guardians could obtain the repayment of certain
expenses which had been incurred, and the reply of
the Poor-law Commissioners was that no past
accounts could be opened.
Mr. BAINES said that, in replying to the question,
to the subject of which the Hon. and Gallant Member
had just called the attention of the House, he would
recapitulate the circumstances under which the question
had arisen. Shortly after the passing of the Poor-law
Amendment Act, the 9th and 10th Vic., c. 66, the Board of
Poor-law Commissioners had received several applications
inquiring what was to be understood by the terms of
certain clauses, and how under certain difficulties they
were to act. In order that the several cases might be
properly treated, the Poor-law Commissioners submitted
the matter to two gentlemen high in their profession
—the law officers of the Crown. Having received
their opinion, they immediately forwarded it to the
several unions throughout the kingdom. But, after the
delivery of that opinion, a decision had been comp to
in the Court of Queen's Bench, which was at variance
with the opinion previously expressed respecting the
construction of the clauses of the Act by the law officers
of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) That decision was of
course at present the law of the land '•—(Hear)--and he
(Mr. Baines) and the other PoordawCommissioners had
lost no time in forwarding a proper notice of it to the several
unions, and drawing the particular attention of the
guardians to it by every means in their power. With
regard to the letter which had caused the question of the
Hon. and Gallant Member, he knew of no clause which
authorised the repayment of any expenses under those
particular circumstances.

'SEIZURES UNDER THE CUSTOMS DUTIES.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS moved for and obtained an
order for a return of the number of seizures of silks,
lace, ribbons, embroidery, and shawls made at the Custom
House of London, from the Ist day of January,
1847, to the Ist day of January, 1849, on the plea
of under valuation of entry; stating the kind of
goods seized, the amount of entry, valuation •f such
seizures, the amount paid by the Custom House to the
importers of the goods, the amount and proceeds of the
sale of such goods, stating the number of lots into
which they were divided for sale, the several days upon
which they were put up for sale, and whether sold or
bought in, or postponed, in each case, and the expenses in-
curred on such sales: and, balance of account, showing
the benefit or loss to the Custom House department,
and the amount paid in each case to the seizing officer.
THE WAR IN THE PUNJAUB.

Mr. G. THOMPSON said he had a question to put to
the Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury, when
The SPEAKER intimated that the Noble Lord (Lord

J. Russell) was not present.

Mr. G. THOMPSON would then address himself to
the Right lion. Baronet the President of the Board of
Control, and was proceeding to make some remarks, when
The SPEAKER again interposed, to say that he
could only state the circumstances which had induced
the question, and then proceed to his inquiry.
Mr. G. THOMPSON then said he wished to ask
whether, as her Majesty's Ministers have deemed it
their duty to lay before the House a Blue Book of 378
pages, relating to a rebellion in the island of Ceylon in
July last, they do not consider it equally their duty
to lay before the House the papers relating to
the war in the Punjaub, described by her Majesty in her
gracious Speech from the Throne, as a " rebellion," which
war has been going on since April, 1848, and has neces-
sitated the calling of an army into the field of not less
than 120,000 men, including camp followers, and in-
volving an extraordinary expenditure of not less than
fire millions sterling a year.
Sir J. C. HOBIIOI.ISE said that the question intended
for his Noble Friend, but which had been put to him,
was couched in an unusually argumentative form.
With regard to the question itself ho must be allowed
to remark that the rebellion in Ceylon had terminated,
but that in the Punjaub was still going on ; and it was
not usual to lay the papers before the House till the
affair to which they related had been concluded. As
to there being an urmy of 120,000 men, besides camp fol-
lowers, of . whom he knew nothing, he must tell the
Hon. Gentleman that the army was not composed of
half that number, while be trusted the information of
the Hon. Gentleman as to the expense of the rebellion
was not correct.

past, in favour of the admission of Jews into Parliament.
However, when they were taking the subject into their
consideration, and especially the recommendation of the
Committee on " Oaths," he thought it would not be out
of place if the attention of the House was directed
to the nature of the oaths which were taken by
the members of different religious persuasions
at the table. Instead of merely dealing with one par-
ticular oath, with a view to the admission into that
House of the Member of a particular sect, he thought, in-
stead of " chopping and, altering," that the wiser course
would be to hare but one form, and that an exceedingly
simple one, as he entertained much objection to a
multiplicity of oaths. He thought, therefore, that
the House would agree with him that if they
could simplify the oaths taken by a Member
on taking his seat, they would be performing a good
public work and elevating the character of that House.
—(Hear.) He did not wish to throw any stigma upon
the proceedings of the House, but he confessed
when he heard Honourable Members talk of
the solemnity of the oath taken by Members,
that he could not agree with them. He entertained an
entirely contrary opinion. The hurrying of Members to
the table at the beginning of a new Parliament to take
the oaths, whilst Members around were talking upon
different subjects, was not to his mind a solemn proceed-
ing, and be did not think those who took a part in it or
beheld it were impressed with a conviction that it was
so. It was no argument" against simplifying their
oaths to say, that because they were settled in the year
1829, and that twenty years had since elapsed, it was
not now expedient to remodel them. Though he had not
spoken to any member of the Roman Catholic faith
with respect to the oaths which they were called upon
to take, he thought he was correct when he said that
tke oath was nut only objectionable to the members of
that faith, but not of a nature to elevate the cha-
racter of that House. The Roman Catholic Member
merely subscribed to the oath which had been
prepared, leaving him at liberty to interpret it
as he pleased. When the oath was proposed
in 1829, by Sir Robert Peel, very little was said in sup-
port of it. Indeed, Chief Justice Bushel said that "no
danger could result from it, and certainly no security."
If it did not exclude members of that faith
from taking part in all debates, he confessed
he did not see the necessity of retaining it. If that oath
was not dangerous, and yet was productive of no
security, he thought they might safely expunge it from
the statute-book. The oaths of supremacy, abjuration,
and sucession were unnecessary at a time when no one
doubted the right of succession, and with
respect to the oath of allegiance great disparity
existed between that taken by a Protestant and a
Roman Catholic—the one said "on the true faith
of a Christian," whilst the other swore "he would
do no injury to the Established Church."
It was just as likely to be injured by those persons who
wished to support the State as by those who, professing
another religion, might not be so hostile to the esta-
blishment as Protestant Dissenters. He totally differed
from the Honourable Member for the University
of Oxford on the high stand he bad taken in advocating
the retention of those words, " on the true faith of a
Christian." He (Mr. Vernon Smith) must say, when
members of the different sects of Christianity met
at the table of the House and said they took the
oath on " the true faith of a Christian."
he could not say what was meant by the word " faith,"
because the true faith of a Christian differed as widely
among Christians, in many instances, as it did,in the faith
of a Jew ; and, therefore, he should object to the words
on " the true faith of a Christian," particularly because
these words being so inserted, and so adapted, would
lead to a result which he wished particularly to avoid.
His Noble Friend said there were three different oaths
to be taken by Members professing three different reli-
gions. There was one taken by the Protestant, aad
that was to be taken by the Jew too; but when
the Jew came to the words on " the true faith of a
Christian," there he was to stop and these words were to
be omitted. Well, now he (Mr. V. Smith) said such a
proceeding as that was very unbecoming of that House,
and it ought to be put a stop to. The next oath was that
which was to be taken by the Roman Catholic Members,
and that oath was entirely different both from that taken
by the Protestant and that taken by the Jew. The Roman
Catholic was not called on to. take the oath on " the
true faith of a Christian." He (Mr V. Smith) should
like to know why ? Now, he thought it a most un-
seemly thing that Members coming up to the table of
that House should be asked what was their particular
religion before they were permitted to take the
oath at the table of the House. He
thought the House would agree with him in
thinking that all that was contained in the oath of su-
premacy and the oath of abjuration was embodied in the
oath of allegiance, which could not be more simple than
it was ; and therefore he thought that the House should
adopt the oath of allegiance. It was with those objections
that they were bound to consider the question of the
oath as tributary to the Jews in their present disabili-
ties, that he had thought it right as a Member of that
House to state the way in which those
objections could be achieved in the simplest
possible manner, and ene most in accordance
with the feelings of the public, and of the majority of the
Members of that House. He begged leave, under those
circumstances, to propose the amendment which he had
road. _ _ _ _

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think there was any
sufficient cause to be dissatisfied with the oath. He
thought the oath was a security, and he should, there-
fore, oppose the amendment of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. HUNIE said the great object to be attained ap-
peared to him, in every transaction, that they had to re-
duce as much as possible unnecessary oaths. By
the Duke of Richmond's Bill there had
been twenty millions avoided.—(Cries of " Hear.")
Since then twenty millions more had been abolished,
and he was not aware that the slightest dishonesty had
ever been discovered in consequence.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it — 72
Mr. BANKES had given notice of an amendment, but
the proper time for proposing it was when they got
into Committee on the Bill. He wished therefore not to
be precluded from moving it on the Bill if he abstained
from moving it then. He had no objection to an altera-
tion of the oaths, but he certainly should object to any
proposal for conferring upon Jews the right of sitting in
the House.

Mr. G. THOMPSON gave notice that on Monday he
should move an address to the Crown for the production
of the papers, and then he would take an opportunity
of justifying the question he had just put.
RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. HUME wished to ask the Right lion. Baronet
what provision had been made for the family of the late
Raja of Sattara.
Sir J. C. 110BIIOUSE had already stated the
amount, while the reason it had not been paid was
simply that the legal representatives of the Raja had re-
fused to receive it.—(llear and laughter.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was glad that the
Hon. Member intended to reserve his amendment to the
Bill before the House. The lion. Gentleman surely could
not think that there was any danger of Jews subverting
or overturning the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)
What he understoood him to say was this—that
he wished the words promising not to subvert
the Established Church should be introduced into the
oath taken generally by Members. Now that was a very
different question, and instead of being the terms of an
admission, they were the terms of a restriction.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Lord John Russell) would object to the
words being introduced with regard to Jews, or to any
other class except Roman Catholics.
Mr. GOULBURN could not conceive that the intro-
duction of the words would have a prejudicial effect upon
any class of persons.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said a most important point was
to be decided by the House, via., whether Catholic Mem-
bers stood in the same position and with the same full
powers as other Hon. Members in that House. Did
they stand there with as full powers and privileges as
the Protestant Dissenters, or were they there, as many
fancied, with one of their hands tied up? There were
some who believed that the oath taken by Roman Catho•
lies involved no restriction as regarded their voting on
questions affecting the revenues of the Protestant Church;
others believedthst it did. It was time that the ques-
tion should be decided one way or the other.—(hear.)
The House did not need to be afraid of the Catholics at-
tempting to appropriate the revenues of the Protestant
Church to themselves; for they held that the money of
the State would only contaminate them and do injury to
their religion.—(Hear.)
Mr. DRUMMOND said it was certainly somewhat
new to those who had some small smattering of historical
knowledge to be told that it was a prevailing doctrine in
the Catholic Church that all alliance with money and
wealth was detrimental to the cause of true religion.
It might be so in Ireland; but he, for one, could not
reconcile this new doctrine with the maxim of the Ca-
tholic Church—seniper idem.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
that as they restricted the Catholics from voting on
questions affecting the Church of England, rrotestants
should also be restricted from voting on all matters af-
fecting the Church of Rome.—(No, no.) Then they
would not adopt the maxim that " what was sauce for,
the goose was sauce for the gander."—(Laughter.) He'
objected to the amendment which the lion. Gentleman
intended to propose, because it went to enact an sx post
Jasto law against Protestant Dissenters. At present,
Protestant Dissenters were at liberty to enter that house
with the full privilege of taking what line they pleased
with regard to the Established Church, whereas, if the
proposed amendment were carried, it would take away
from them the privileges they already enjoyed.—(Hear.)
The Earl of ARUN DEL and SURREY had not in-
tended speaking on this subject at all; but he felt com-
pelled to state why be had felt it to be his duty not to
vote for the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
V. Smith), and why he could not vote for the motion of
the lion. Member for Dorsetshire. At present the
Roman Catholics. when they came to that House, were
obliged to take a certain oath. There was no compul-
sion upon them to become Members of that House ; but
when they once became members they were obliged to
take the prescribed oath. The object of the Right Hon.
themGentleman'sN
this,
ow
thathr oi
sm h tt
ehh
they
inconveniences(rrt h VoeiAtSornamuinat hdnSmith's)
)c,)atvhimotionarisingoeCatholics)
esl
fromwaste hn gma
engaged,
that
aoe t
dt deer
upon
ipwv oath.oaenrs
if
a certain condition, to enter that House, it did not ap-
pear to him to be right that they should subsequently
take advantage of their acceptance of that condition to
do away with the condition itself.—(Hear, hear.) He
would illustrate his view by a familiar case. Suppose
that there was a club in London that admitted fo-
reigners to become members and to enjoy all the
ordinary advantages and privileges of the club, but
upon condition that they should not interfere with
the election of members ; and suppose that in
a few years afterwards some gentleman should
move that the rule which prevented those foreign mem.
bers interfering in elections should be altered—would it
be right that those foreign members should vote for such
a motion? He thought it would not; and it was upon
that principle he had declined voting for the motion of
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith). With re-
spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for D. orsetseire,
he should decline to vote either for or against it, and
should leave Protestant Members to settle it amongst
themselves—(Hear, hear.)
lie would only further say,
that while he would not vote for an alteration of the
Roman Catholic oath himself, he should consider it a
wb oaosn
thi fe i ts
owuerrcee aolft egr er
edafto
ntchoenmv
e;
nbi
eenccaeu; efraotm pi rt
se s elu
being i t

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1849.

differently interpreted by Catholics equally scrupulous
and equally honourable—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE could not feel otherwise than
highly gratified at the speech which the Noble Lord
had just made. Would that all Roman Catholics were
like him.—(Hear, hear.) Firm in upholding the in-
terests of his Church—ready to promote its advancement
oven when it might be felt to be an invasion of the Es-
tablished Church, the Noble Lord yet refused to avail
himself of the doctrine which some Roman Catholics
held, that he was relieved from the obligation of an oath
whenever it interfered with the interests of his religion.
—(Cries of "No, no.") He (Mr. Newdegate) had in
his possession good evidence that such a doctrine was
held by some Roman Catholics. With reference to the
amendment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bankes), he begged
to say that although he thought it had a considerable
degree of reason on its side, yet, as he was not prepared
to alter the existing oaths, he felt that to vote for the
amendment would lead him into some embarrassment.

Mr. ANSTEY said he entirely concurred with the
Noble Lord in his views of the oath and of the duty of
Roman Catholics with respect to any proposition for its
alteration. Perhaps the hest course would be to intro
duce a clause preventir, any person unconnected with
the Church of England from interferini, in any question
affecting its temporalities. If they did' so, they would
only carry out by law what was in his judgment the
duty of every Roman Catholic Member, For his own
part, he had no doubt but that the intention of the Le-
gislature in passing the Act of 1829 was to prohibit
such an interference, and he felt it his duty as a man of
honour to give effect to that intention, and could only
regret that the Act of 1829 had been framed in so
ambiguous, not to say so bungling, a manner as to
leave any Roman Catholic free to choose what course to
take.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER observed, that the view of the Act of
1829 taken by the Noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel and
Surrey) was only what he had expected from his high
character, and that the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet in introducing that measure, as well as the evi-
dence and sentiments of Dr. Doyle and others, proved
that view to be correct. He was glad to find that the
interpretation put on the oath by the promoters of the
Emancipation Act was that which was now affixed to
it by high-minded and honourable Members of the
House. _ _

every freeholder who exercised the elective franchise
might have bad the same question put to him with the
same propriety as the Hun. Gentleman has put his ques-
tions to me. I must be content to leave it to the Roman
Catholics whether they can safely take that oath or not.
I think it is for the Roman Catholic Members personally
and individually to consider its propriety. With re-
spect to those Hon. Members who have taken it and
have given their votes upon their conscientious construc-
tion of it, I have never upbraided them for a breach of
the pledge they contracted on entering Parliament, and I
think the Roman Catholics are as little likely to commit
the crime of perjury as any other Hon. Members of the
House—(Hear, hear)—but the construction they put on
the oath must be left to their consciences, and nothing
would in my opinion be more dangerous than that I
should give a legislative construction of it.—(Hear.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the doctrine of the
Right Hon. Baronet left each man to put his own inter-
pretation on the oath. He would rather take the inter-
pretation of the House, be that what it might.
On the question being put,
Mr. LAW declared that, in allowing the resHlution to
pass without a divi,ion, he reserved to himself every
opportunity of offering the proposition a most vigorous
opposition.—(Hear, hear.) Ho begged to move that the
Chairman should leave the chair to record his opposi-
tion, though he would not divide the House upon it.
The question was put; the resolution was agreed to,
and, the House having resumed, was reported.
In reply to Mr. BANKES,

Lord J. RUSSELL stated that, owing to the great
amount of public business, he did not propose to intro-
duce the Bill till after Easter.

Mr. SHEIL—I think it incumbent on me, as a Ro-
man Catholic, distinctly to state, that I neither coincide
in the interpretation put upon the oath by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell)
nor in that which has been put upon it by my Noble
Friend behind roe (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey).
If the interpretation of the Noble Lord the Member for
Arundel—(for which he has incurred the panegyric of
the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of
Dublin, Mr. Napier)—be correct, it is quite clear that
no Roman Catholic could with propriety have voted on
the Church Temporalities Bill, for the diminution o.
the number of Bishops in Ireland, or for the Church Cess
Bill, the effect of which was to diminish the revenues
of the Established Church, indirectly, to the amount of
60,0004—(Hear, hear.) Now there is a great distinction,
in my mind, between the total subversion of the
Church of Ireland and the diminution of its re-
venues, provided that, in such diminution, you leave
and adequate sum, not only for its spiritual main-
tenance but for its temporal sustainment as a por-
tion of the Established Church of this country. I
do not think it right to enter into an ex-
amination of the exact words of the oath, but con-
tent myself with referring lion. Members to the obser-
vations made by Sir C. Wetherell at the time it was in-
troduced. He ;complained that it was perplexed and
obscure, and that it would be easy, to use a well-known
forensic phrase, to drive a coach•and-four through it.
What could be more easy than for any Roman Catholic
to swear he would not use any privilege to which he
might be entitled to diminish the temporal possessions of
the Church ? If Members of the House thought there
should be a declaratory Act for the purpose of stating
what the oath meant, it would be easy to pass it. But
I cannot agree with my Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), that if a reso-
lution were passed putting an interpretation upon the
oath, he and other Hon. Members would be bound by it.
He should only be bound by Act of Parliament. Every
oath must bo taken " secundunt sensum imponentis.'
Who was to determine that ?—the Legislature. I
think I am bound, in conscience, however, and by every
moral obligation, nut to subvert or overthrow the Church,
but, at the same time, that I am at liberty to make such
alterations in or applications of its revenues as may be
consistent with the due and proportionate maintenance of
the Establishment.—(Hear. hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY remarked,
that the speeches they had just heard afforded a proof
how Catholics of the highest honour differed with
respect to the oath.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL approved of the suggestion of
the Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon, that the House
should pass a declaratory Act on the subject, as they
often did when there was doubt with respect to the con-
struction of a statute. He thought the House would not
consult its own dignity to leave the matter as it stood,
especially when they had just heard three Roman Ca-
tholics express different opinions upon it. The oath
should certainly be taken in the sense in which it was
imposed, but the difficulty was to find that sense. Were
the Roman Catholics emancipated or not ? It was well
for English Catholics to come into Parliament with
whatever understanding they pleased, but he begged to
remind them it was the Irish Catholics who won eman-
cipation, and who would not have accepted it if their
hands wers to be tied. The Church of Ireland was
supported by the money of the Irish people, and he
wished to know if the Representatives of the majority of
the people were to have any voice in the disposal of that
money. He hoped the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell)
or the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would give
some answer to those questions.
Sir R. PEEL—If the Hon. Member's supposition
were correct, and if the oath to which he refers had
been introduced into the Act on my motion, it appears
to me I should act most improperly if I personally or
individually were to undertake to say what, in my
opinion, was the proper construction of that oath.—
(Hear, hear.) The imposition of the oath was the act
of the House of Commons, and of the Legislature.
Votes have been given in the House which have occa-
sioned some comment; but I am sure you will do me
the justice to say that, since 1829, I never attributed
it to any Member connected with Ireland that, in giv-
ing his vote, he had given it otherwise than in a proper
and conscientious manner. I say, therefore, that if it
had been introduced on my motion, nothing would have
been more unfair with respect to the Irish Members
who have been acting on their construction of the
oath than if I were to listen to the appeal that has
been made to me, and undertook to say what was
the sense of the Legislature in imposing it. If the
Legislature were dissatisfied with the course taken by
Roman Catholic Members, it would be the duty of the
Right Hon. Member, and others who think with him, to
establish some new rule, and to lay down expressly
what is their intention with respect to the admission of
Roman Catholics to seats ix Parliament; but, to say that
Hoe. Members who hare acted on their own conscien-
tious construction of the oath are in error—that is an
office which I must decline to take. But the fact is, Hon.
Members are entirely in error in supposing that the oath
in 1829 was introduced by me. In 1829 a proposal was
made by express enactment to remove the restrictions
on Roman Catholics taking their seats in this House. It
was then proposed by a Right Hon. and much lamented
friend of mine—Mr. Wilmot Horton—that Roman Ca-
tholics should not be permitted to vote on questions re-
lating directly or indirectly to the interests of the Es-
tablished Church. I stated my objections to the intro-
duction of any such proposal, which was made, I believe,
from the best motives, and supported with ingenuity,
ability, and research. I said:
" My Right lion. Friend has proposed, with a view to
calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the
admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the
Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law
from voting on matters relatiug, directly or indirectly, to
the interests of the Established Church. There appear
to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal.
it is dangerous to establish the prece-
in the first places
dent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties
and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exer-
cised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand
what are the questions which affect the interests of the
Church. A question which has no immediate apparent
connexion with the Church might have a practical bear-
ing upon its welfare ten times more important than
another question which might appear directly to concern
it. Thirdly, by excludiag the Roman Catholic from
giving his individual rote, you do little to diminish
his real influence, if you leave him the power of
speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the
question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a
jealous and distrusting, but ineffectual precaution, you
tempt him to exercise, to your prejudice, the remaining
power of which you cannot, or do not, propose to deprive
him. I believe there is more of real security in confi-
dence than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccom-
panied by effectual guards. For these reasons lam un-
willing to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either
House of Parliament of any privilege of free discussion
and free exercise of judgment which belongs to other
Members of the Legislature.
I have ventured to trouble the House with this quota-
tion, because it is the cotemporaneous explanation of
the object I had in view in 1829; but at the same time
the Act did require an oath to be taken by Roman
Catholics—not imposing it, however, for the first time,
but adopting the form of oath in an Act passed in
1793, which was taken from an earlier statute in 1774,
which was arranged in concert with the Roman Catho-
lics, and to which they had no objection whatever. Hon.
Gentlemen would recollect it was no easy matter to
carry the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. We had to look
out to see in what way we were to succeed, and lam
perfectly certain we could not have parted with any se-
curity which then existed. In order to show the Right
Hon. Gentleman he is in error, I will read the oath
which Roman Catholics were required to take by the Act
of 1793. The Act of 1793 conferred very important
privileges upon them. It admitted them into civil and
military offices, places of trust, and into the police. In
fact, all places under the Crown, with some exceptions
mentioned, were opened to them provided they would
take this oath. The Act of 1793 put them on the same
footing as other subjects of the Crown, having removed
all disability with respect to landed property. The
oath required to be taken was as follows :
" And I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of
my power the settlement and arrangement of property
in this country as established by the laws now in being.
I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any
intention to subvert the present Church Establishment
for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment
in its stead ; and I do solemnly swear that I will not
exercise any privilege to which I am or may become
entitled to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion
and Protestant Government in this kingdom.—So help
me God."

Every one appointed to any office under the Act of 1793,

RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the
Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill,
_ _

Mr. HUME entered his formal protest against it, but
refused to divide the Housc

Mr. BANKES wished to take that opportunity of
asking the Noble Lord what had become of those col.
leges in Ireland, which would, he was afraid, turn out
to he sojuseless?
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply, said that due provision
bad been made in the Act for the erection of the col-
leges, and for the maintenance of the professors. The
colleges would be open by the Ist of October, and so far
from their being entirely useless, he was glad to say that
many persons of the Roman Catholic permission had
stated their intention of entering them.—(Hear.)
The Bill was ordered to be committed on Monday.
VICE-GUARDIANS OF UNIONS (IRELAND)

and with great ferocity snatched it from her arms. The
sister returned to the mother, and informed her what
had happened, and in a few moments the unnatural
parent entered the room, holding the child up by its
ancles. The poor little creature was laughing at the
time, apparently thinking that the way she was being
held was the result of play. The mother instantly
made an offer to seia,3 her offspring, when the prisoner,
with fearful force, dashed the child upon the floor. He
then lifted it up by its ancles, and again hurled it to the
ground. Here his brutality did not cease. He struck
the helpless innocent three times, and having lifted the
body from the floor, swung it round by the legs, and
threw it some distance towards the mother. The floor
was bricked, and several places were broken by t',e
force the child was thrown dawn. The prisoner the❑
decamped, and the unfortunate little creature was re-
moved to the infirmary, but death had already termi-
nated its sufferings, several severe fractures having been
inflicted on the skull.

The LEARNED BARON having summed up,
The jury, after an absence of an hour, found the
prisoner Guilty of murder, but strongly recommended
him to mercy.

Hip LORDSHIP—On what grounds, gentlemen? The
Foreman—Because of our strong abhorrence of capital
punishment.

Hii LORDSHIP —Oh ! that is a very foolish ground.
Any other or better ground? The Foreman—No, my
Lord.

His LORDSHIP having put on the black cap, in a most
impressive meaner passed upon the prisoner the awful
sentence of the law, that he be hung by the neck till ha
was dead, and his body to be buried within the precincts
of the gaol.