The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON

truth, but now the Pope did exercise power in this
country, by the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops,
and they all knew how acts of imperial policy had been
impeded inlreland by the mandates of the Pope being
strenuously proclaimed in that country. It was impossi-
ble for them to say the Pope did not exercise spiritual au-
thority directly in Ireland. That ho exercised no direct
authority by act of Parliament he could understand, but
it was difficult, without mental interpretation or mental
reservation, to swear he had no indirect authority in
that country. To call upon a Roman Catholic to swear
that the Pope had no spiritual authority in this country
was to call upon him to deny one of the tenets of his
church, and it was no answer to be toll that many very
good and pious men had from time immemorial sworn
to those words, because it was notorious that a few
years ago oaths multiplied with so much levity, that
persons took them with no more religions feeling than
in paying taxen A great change heel, however, taken
place in that respect. A great many thought and held
it to be a solemn proceeding instead of an idle form, and
instead of being laughed at, it was considered a solem-
nity is which the heart and the conscience of the party
did their part. He was inclined to consider the oath
as humiliating to Protestants, from its inconsistency to
acknowledge facts foreign to our legislative intentions,
setting a bad example of lax political morality which in
the eyes of religious people they could not pass uncon-
cerned. The case of the Roman Catholics he thought
was still harder, far they had to subscribe an oath which
in their byes was untruthful in substance. He should
claim to himself the right of raising the question on some
future occasion, and should now content himself with
entering his protest against the Roman Catholic oath.
(Cries of " divide.")
Lard PALMERSTON concurred in the opinion ex-
pressed by his noble friend the member fur London that
it was desirable there should only be one oath to be
taken by all members of the house - (hear, hear)—if
such an oath could be framed sufficient for its purpose.
And although he did not agree with his right honour-
able friend who had just sat down that there was any-
thing in the Roman Catholic oath that was untruthful—
(hear)—or that there was anything in it he could not
conscientiously take, although it contained statements
disavowing doctrines which he entertained, he agreed
with his right hon. friend that it was very desirable
some alteration should be made in it. Yet he con-
curred with his noble friend in thinking they had
better dispose of the matter in hand without coup•
ling it with another object. They could not disguise
from themselves that it was a matter of difficulty to
pass a bill for the admission of Jews to Parliament, and
he did net think it was the beet way to surmount one
difficulty by nenecesearily creating a second difficulty.
(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that if Or all at-
tempted two things at once they were likely to fail in
both, and that by agreeing to the amendment without
improving the condition of the Roman Catholics they
were likely to impede the chances of the bill for the ad-
mission of the .Tewa to Parliament being carried. He
recommended the hon, member not to embarrass the
present question by going to a division on the amend-
ment.
Mr. WIGRA.M said the motion before the house in-
volved a mater of great importance. If the bill passed,
Protestants would still be required to make abjuration
of the Pope having any spiritual power in this country,
whilst Rouen Catholics, under Roman Catholic emanci-
pation, were at liberty to substitute the oath abjuring
, toe temporal power of the Pope ; but if they made the
proposed alteration the effect would be that Roman Ca-
tholics could come and take the oath which the clause
struck out of the bill, and avoid making the abjuration
new required of the Pope's temporal power. The change
was an important one, and, if carried, would meet with
the disapprobation of the country. Three or four years
since, the house was occupied nearly the whole of a ses-
sion in di cussing the temporal power of the Pope, which
they were now about to abandon. BA suggested that
the wcrds should be retained with the addition of the
words "not lawful' jut isdiction in thiscountry. (Divide.)
Mr. STEUART sugeested the words "not rightful"
jurisdiction in this country.
Mr. FORTESCUE had no wish to endanger the
cause of the Jew, but he could not refrain from expres-
sing his objection to the re-enacting objectionable parts
in the old oath which he as a Protez..tant thought should
be expunged. (Divide.)
Mr. IILSSALL, amidst loud cries of divide, was
understood to oppose the bill.
Mr. COGAN explained that the noble lord the mem-
ber for London had mistaken his motion if he thought
that the Roman Catholics, having been admitted to that
house, they wished to slain the door in the face of the
Jew. He had no desire in moving the amendment to
oppose the bill as regarded Jews. (Divide.)
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Fur the amendment 66
Against it
Majority... —279
Mr. STEUART then moved the introduction of the
word hath, or ought not to have, "rightfully" any juris-
diction, (!cc.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought some difficulty
would arise in giving a correct definition of the word. He
preferred the words " by law."
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was admitted on all hands

that it was desirable something should be done in regard
to these words, and the question was, which of the
words suggested was the best for taking the opinion of
the house The noble lord the member for London pre-
ferred the word "lawfully," but he (elr. Gladsto❑e) be•
litsved the noble lord's construction of the oath with it

introduced would not hold. It was a question composed
partly of history and partly of the private impressions
of individual.. The objtct of the oath, and that with
reference to the supremacy, was to exclude Roman
Catholics, and it wa, retained at the Revolution to ex•
chi le them alone, but there may tie many Roman

Catholics in this country who were coa*cientiously of
opinion that the Pope neither bath, nor otLfht to have
any legal or coercive jurisdiction or power in these
realms, as was the case with the Roman Catholics
of the Uni'ed States, who, as a body, objected in the
strongest manner to any such power being exercised
by the Pope—(kear, hear)—and such was the lan-
guage always held in that house by the late Mr.
O'Connell, and if that were the right construction there
was nothing to have prevented Mr. O'Connell from
taking the oath at the table of the house, if such
were his opinion. His (fir. Gladstone's) opinion
was that the construction to be put upon the words
of the oath was, that the Pope bath not or ought not to
have "rightfully, properly, and justly" jurisdiction in
this country, and as there appeared tl be a difference of
eonstruction of the oath, he wished to bring to the minds
of hon. members the great constitutional importance
of the matter, which difference was of itself a proof that

the construction of the oath required the atten ion of
the house—(hear, hear)—and that it should not be 'Eft
to A, B, and C to consider for themselvee. There
ought to be a legislative construction put upon an oath
that purported to aim at a great constitutional objec', and
which different gentlemen construed in different mode:for
theruselvee. His right hon. friend referred to the
positi ,n of the Moravian body in reference to the oath of
supremacy. He believed no body enjoyed more universal
respect from all classes of Christians titan the Moravians
(hear)—but they, having the misfortune to be governed
by a foreign jurisdiction, termed the " Consistory," at
Hermanstadt, in Germany, a case had recently been sub-
mitted to the eminent civilian, Dr. Twis-i, and he had
given it as his opinion that a Moravian could not properly
and correctly take the oath of supremacy, and conse-
quently he was deprived from taking office under the
Crown. Thera were no great difficulties in the case. One
hon. member gave one meaning, the "rightfully, and his
noble friend another, the " lawfully," consequently it
was the duty of the house to bring to the matter some
authoritative solution. He hoped that the amendment
would be adopted as originally proposed.
Mr. ROEBUCK pressed for a legal and authoritative
solution of the difficulty. Tue word proposed, " pro-
perly,', would only complicate the difficuley. As the law
stood the Pope had spiritual power in this cauntry, and
the real way to deal wi h this bill would be to leave out
the words altogether. Roman Catholics were no longer
excluded by those words—the exclusion applied to Pro-
testants. The oath, as it stood, was untrue, and sorely
pressed conscience. (Efear.) Men took the oath without
attaching the meaning to it which the defenders of it in-
ten led. But he regarded the words in the oath as a
nettle in his path, and he trampled upon it. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) Tile word ought not to be "rightfully,"
but "by law." (Hear, hear.)
Sir R. BETHE LL thought that much confusion would
be avoided by referring to the original statute, whet e it
would be fJund that the words " • p ritual and ecclesias-
tical" were of one and the same importance. The word
" sp.ritual" applied to the authority exercised by courts
of ju-tics. The authceity of the Crown was pre-eminent,
and the oath abjured all foreign spiritual authority in
temporal matters. What a man declared when he took

the oath of supremacy Wag, that whatever jurisdiction
might be exercised in the land derived its source from

the Crown, Thu words " lawfull" 0; " rigbtfuliY" were
mere surplusage, as they were already expressed in the
oath. (Rear.)

Mr. B. HOPE said that the beet argument against
the desirability of such an oath as this, was the diver-
gence of opinion which existed as to its meaning on the
pa-t of members who in their profes,ional capacity w, re
a silk gown. (El-ar, hear, and a laugh.) It was of the
first importance not to introduce a definition which
could become the suhject of doubt and contention. He
suggested the word "legally "
Tne ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND pre-
ferred the words as they stood in the oath, as affording
a protection to men in many circumstances in which
they might he oppressed.
Mr. L. WIGRA.N.I expresed a similar opinion.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the omission of the
words "directly or indirecly," at page 2, line 10.

Mr. WALPOLE assenteti.
114 r. NEWDEGATE then proposed to leave out clause
5. He did not affect to be a better wan or better Chris-

tiati than other gentlemen in that loth,e, but he fe.dt a
de, p conviction that it was not only impolitic, hut ab,o-
lot ly wrong to seek to unchribtiahise the Legi-lature as
this course would do. En- many years ho had acted in

unison with men of learning, Criristian feeling, and be-
nevolence, who thought that the admission of Jcari to

Ptvliatner,t would unaribtiani.e tim lloLse of Cominotir,

The contest lay het wten a wealthy Jew, his City C in-
-Btitueccy, and a party in that house, who stood up for
what they called "civil and religious liberty." lie be-
lieved that Baron Rothschild contemplated as inroad on

;he constitution by seeking admission to the house ; but

he looked with confidence to the continued oppotition
the people to such an uncbristianising attempt. He had
no objection to the Jews assuming Ministerial office,
but he should resist their participation in political office.
The clause proposed that the Jew should be admitted as
a professor of the Jewish religion, and he could see no
good to be derivedvi
latrdomtspbeinnedaitni: the Jew down to his rc-
.ttbalz(dtttuti weera,fsesvighl.oilbullyd be
so proposed
me altrigtaoti
ffuisriothneo
fpurposes
rio!
n. But the Jew derived