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

Imo previously steed, end or Vr. !lids he laid net
the most remote prospect of enjoying. Therefore that
oath was quite absurd, and the man who took it that
year would have different impression on his mind
from the man who took it the previous year. He
only threw that out to show how far equivocation would
go as regarded that oath. The argument be (Mr. O'Con-
nell) used had been used on a for Mer occasion with re
pct to the coronation oath. What millions of pamphlet
—what masses of arguments and thousands of speeches Lad
been used regarding the violation of the coronation oath.
all turning on the mere equivocation of the words, or the
different interpretations whicn different individuals might
give them. Did it require the Catholics any more than
the Protestants to swear that they would defend the state
of property ? if they did net swear the Pro-
testants, why did they swear the Catholics ?
—(Hear, hear.) The oath then went on—" And I
hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any inten-
tion to subvert the church establishment, as by law esta•
Wished within the realm." The same solution might be
app lied to that as to the former paragraph, and
here again he wauld adduce the occurrences of last year,
when Ministers had passed the Church Temporalities Bill.
A bill which had unsettled the church establisk-
ment more than any act that had taken place since the
revolution.—(Hear.) What he (Mr. O'C.) required
was a committee which would put an end to these equi-
vocations. The oath went on—" And I do solemnly owes
that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am
or may be entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant re-
ligion or Protestant government within the realm.
Wha was the meaning of Protestant government now is
this country? Was a man sati-fied to swear that govern-
ment was a Protestant government, when the entire of it
night be Catholics, the entire of the judicial seats might be
Catholics, with the exception of the Chancellor; the
navy, the army, and the magistrates, might be Catholics ?
In point of law all who were admitted. into the Govern-
ment, with the exception of the Chancellor, might be
Catholics.—(ll,ar.) Was it sate, then, to swear th t
such a government was a Protestant government, when
there were only two—the King and the Chancellor—at
ell connected wilt it, whom it was necessary should be
Protestants? He could not but feel that this was a point
of great difficulty. He might ba laughed at for his
scruples, but he could not help acknowledging his scruples
on this subject had ceen very great. He had been tole)
that it was the legislature itself which had passed
'he act, and as the word protestant had been iutroduceii
must have intended such a Protestant government as now
existed to have been understood—namely, composed only
as it might be of a Protestant King and Protestant keeper
of his conscience, all the o-her members being Catholics.
He trusted lie had not done wrong in taking up a stroug
feeling on this question—such feeling he entertained. Was
it intended to be said that there was a great difference
between Protestantism and the meaning of a Protestant,
gavernmeni ? They certainly were, as far as he was ca-
pable of distinguishing between them, mast essentially dif-
ferent, and this was a fast which the house ought
gravely to consider, when it came to call upon members
who took their seats there to take the oaths, which it was
now considered necessary to administer to them.
(LIFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mlacs 10.

Mr. COBBETT aaked if th,y were always ready to
grant any sum of public money, how were min isters to
lessen the public burden of the country ? It would be an-
other thing, indeed, if the hon. member for Hull com-
municated to the house that the rich men of Hull them-
selves were going to bestow a sum of money upon Captain
Ross. It would be much more natural and just than
asking them to give it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If they
were to grant everything that was asked they
would have plenty of persons to ask. They were called
upon to pay money ; they knew not whether the call was
right or wrong; there had been no committee, no inquiry;
they were caded upon to vote away the public money upon
mere rumour.

Lord SANDON said he bad a petition to present
from the mayor and corporation of Liverpool, all
praying the house to grant some remuneration
to Captain Ross.—(Hear, heir.) He considered that
the least they could do, after the four years that Captain
Ross had spent in the service, was for that house to come
forward and vote some specific remuneration.—(Hear,
hear.) He was sorry that the hon. member for Oldham
took what he (Lord Sandon) considered eo very narrow
a view of this question.

Mr. T. LENNARD thought that Captain Ross had
claim on the consideration of the house; but he hoped he
had discovered a mode of reconciling the objection of the
bon, member for Oldham to the grant of Captain Ro,s.
His mode was this—it was known they had appropriated a
fund of 75,0001. a.year for the payment of pensions.
If they would recommend to his Majesty to grant a
pension to Capt. Ross, it would, in his opinion, have the
effect of, in a great measure, removing the objections to
the existence of pensions ; it would be a very proper
mode of disposing of that fund; it would tend to satisfy
the country, and would do justice to a meritorious and
deserving individual.—( Hear, hear)_