The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-11 00:00:00

MARINE MUTINY BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, this
bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
The House then adjourned to Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at ten minutes past five.
The Sheriffs of London presented a petition from the
city of London, comp'aining of the burden imposed on
the said city by ward constables.

Mr. HARVEY moved for a return of the writs
issued in the Court of King's Bench, with the amount of
the costs of each, from what date we could not hear ; also
for a return of the number of public boards, the members
of which received compensation.
Mr. COATES presented a petition from the Calvanistic
Dissenters of Oswestry, Shropshire.
Mr. FITZGERALD presented petitions on the sub-
ject of tithe' and the repeal of the union.
Mr. ROBARTS presented a petition from the mer-
chants and traders of a place, the name of which we did
not bear, praying for an uniform duty upon all teas im.
ported into this country.

Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition, signed by a
large body of dissenters residing at Huddersfield, against
church rates.

Mr. B. HANDLEY begged to ask the noble lord the
Chancellor of the Exchequer a question relative to the
composition of assessed taxes.

Lord ALTHORP regretted that his answer last night
was not perfectly understood. It was his intention, on
every principle of justice, not to confine the motion to
any particular district, but to extend it over the entire
country.

The question and answer were very imperfectly heard,
owing to the noise which prevailed in the body of the
house.

MALT TAX.

Mr. COBBETT gave notice that, on Monday next, on
the house going into a committee of supply, he would
move for a repeal of the entire duty on malt.
Mr. BERNAL presented several petitions in support of
the church establishment.

Mr. lIEATHCOTE presented a petition from a parish
in Lincolnshire, praying for an equitable labour rate.
Mr. PEASE presqfted several petitions from Dissenters,
praying for relief from disabilities affecting them.
OATIIS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move for the appointment
of a committee to consider the oaths which were taken,
and those, if any, which ought to be taken by members of
the house. He trusted that the importance of the question
would induce the house to comply in allowing the nomina-
tion of this committee.—(Hear, hear, bear.) He ac-
knowledged that his object was to abolish all reli-
gious oaths upon members taking their seats in that
house, and, if necessary, to substitute a, declaration dis-
claiming, in the most unequivocal manner, all species of
bribery and corruption in their elections. Whether the
house would go so far with him or not, would not decida
the question, viz., whether a committee should be ap-
pointed. He bad to lay before the house the strong.
est grounds for the appointment of such a committee.
Whatever the results might be, those grounds being to be
found in the nature of oaths taken being different in one
class of members from those of another. In fact, there
were established three different modes of swearing or
affirming in coming into that house—the Protestant
swore—the Catholic swore—the Quaker affirmed—and
the Moravian would have equal right to take his seat if
elected. Those modes were all sanctioned by law, varying
in their number, and much more essentially in their nature.
He thought they bad new arrived at that period at
which the oaths of all peculiar religious distinctions
ought to be put an end to, and if any one was required, it
ought to be the same for persons of all tenets—he
meant that it should be an affirmation. Oaths ought to
be put an end to, because they existed only for a few
moments, while the members were at the table, and for-
gotten for the rest of their career. It might, indeed, be
said that they were the badge of the subjection of the one
party by the persons of another religion. Why should
that exist any longer ? The notion of keeping up that dis-
tinction, and making such subjugation, was a Chinese
prostration to the chair, before members could take their
seats, and ought not to exist any longer in practice, as it
was abolished in principle, and by the good feeling of the
house. He wished to point out some strange anomolies
in the oaths, and the equivocal nature of them, Catholic oath
as well as Protestant oath, and Protestant as well as Catholic.
He appealed to the house whether there ought to be any
solid distinction of words by which they were to attest and
acknowledge the influence of the living God ? There was
no principle of Christian morality more clear than this,
that if the words be in themselves in any way equivocal
io their meaning, they ought to be taken in the construc-
tion upon which the party imposing them intended. He
challenged the house upon the construction of the Catho-
lic oath, to see if it ought to be different from that
which he put on it himself. He bad a most satisfactory
reply, although he ' knew that some gentlemen en.