The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS,

Mr. CAIII, D moved the following resolution That
it Would be advantageous- to the public interests that t
Go-
vernment should ascertain and -publish periodically the
agricultural statistics of Great Britain, in so far as they
relate to the extent of acres under the several crops of corn,
vegetables, and grass." He contended it was most desirable
that the information in question should be collected with
the census, and presented in that form to the public. Then

there were no difficulties in obtaining this information that
could not be surmounted, and they could obtain the estimate
when the crops were being gathered. If the Government
would only take up the subject earnestly, they would be
sure to succeed, and they could enlist the police as an efficient
agency in obtaining the necessary information,whichwould
prove most beneficial to the agriculturist, the merchant,
the banker, and the shipowner. The neces y for securing
all the information they could on the subj was most im-
minent. They might be on the eve of a continental war, and
it was a fact that the source from which they derived one•
fourth of their supply was dried up. He meant America,
from which country he did not think they would receive
any more corn, or other grain, till August next.
Mr. GARNETT said that from personal knowledge of
the subject he had no apprehension of any injurious result
from collecting the proposed statistics, and he would second
the motion.

Mr. BENTINCK, in opposing the motion, said that it
would be impossible to carry out the principle of any bill
on the subject without the introduction of the compul-
sory clause. He considered that the hon. member
(Mr. Caird) had not studied the subject sufficiently,
and he (Mr. Bentinck) could not see what class would be
benefited by a bill founded on the motion. He hoped under
the circumstances that the house would not accept the
motion of the hon. member, or adopt an abstract motion.
Mr. PHILIPS opposed the motion, which he thought
would do injury than benefit, in consequence of its being an
affectation of accuracy where accuracy could not be ob-
tained, and therefore likely to mislead.
Mr. HOLLAND and Mr. MILLS also opposed the
motion.

Mr CAIRD replied, and read letters from distinguished
farmers in this country and Scotland in favour of his views,
and stating that the farmers generally were not adverse to
agricultural statistics.
Mr. HENLEY said he was sorry the hon. member in-
tended to press his resolution. The word periodically
might apply to six months or seven years. He could not
see the use of the motion as now worded. But there had
been during the last few years several compulsory schemes
which had proved failures. Such a resolution as that
would lead to no practical result, and that being so, there
was no use in putting it on the journals of the house. It
would, if acted upon, rather indispose than conciliate the
minds of the farmers, and there was no body of men in
the kingdom that could offer more passive resistance if so
disposed. (A laugh.) It was a mere abstract resolution,
and could not lead to any practical results. (Cries of
" Divide.")
Mr. BALL said all the farmers wanted was to be let
alone, and if the motion were persisted in and acted upon
it would only produce nominal or fictitious returns.
Mr. WILSON said that they were spending £3,000
a-year for agricultural statistics in Ireland, and also money
for the same purpose in Scotland ; but it was admitted on
all hands, that unless the system was extended to the
whole kingdom, that expenditure, which was now going on
yearly, was useless. The house should come to some re-
solution either to complete the system or discontinue it
altogether. (Hear, hear.) He should support the motion.
Mr. PACKE said that the returns, if madeovould„only
prove delusive.

Mr. BASS said that it was necessary, desirable, and of
the greatest importance to ascertain the agricultural statis-
tics of Great Britain.

The house then divided, when tkere appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —ll
The motion was consequently lost.
SHERIFFS.

Mr. GRIFFITH obtained leave to bring in a bill to
regulate the expenses to be incurred by persons serving the
office of High Sheriff in England and Wales.

TRIAL BY JURY IN SCOTLAND.

On the motion of Mr. DUNLOP, leave was given to
bring in a bill to amend an act of the 17th and 18th years
of her Majesty, for allowing verdicts on trials by jury in
civil causes in Scotland to be received, although the jury
may not be unanimous.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.

Mr. JOHN FITZGERALD moved that the house do
resolve itself into a committee to consider the Act 10
Geo. IV., c. 7, in relation to the oath thereby required to
be taken and subscribed, instead of the oaths of allegiance,
supremacy, and abjuration. Having referred to the legis-
lation of last session, by altering the oaths taken by mem-
bers of the Established Church, and to the admission of
members of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament, he said
_he simply proposed that the Roman Catholic members of
the house should be placed in the same position as other
gentlemen, when they went to the table for the purpose of
taking their seats and oaths. Were he to follow his own
views he should abolish altogether the obligation of taking
oaths, and substitute a short declaration of allegiance to the
Crown and Constitution. It was only right that all mem-
bers should be placed on terms of civil equality. There was
not equality at present, for the Roman Catholic oath con-
tained matters and statements which made the Roman
Catholic member feel that he was placed in a position of
degrading inferiority. The oath, last session, was confined
in terms to the oath of allegiance, and it separated the de-
claration against the Pope or other foreign princes having
dominion within the country. But the Roman Catholic
oath, beside the declarations of allegiance and abjuration,
contained two other clauses, which, if he obtained a select
committee, he hoped, by means of a bill, to have the power
of expunging. He would now call the attention of the
house to the oath as it stood in the Emancipation Act. The
first clause was, " and I do further declare, that it is not an
article of my faith, and I do renounce, reject, and abjure
the opinion, that any princes, excommunicated or deposed
by the Pope, or under the authority of the See of Rome,
may be murdered by their subjects, or by any person whom-
soever." The second clause to which he wished to draw
attention was as follows, " And I do swear that I will de-
fend to the utmost of my power the settlement of pro-
perty within this realm as settled by the laws." There
was a third passage followed by the clause, " and I do
solemnly, in the presence of God, profess and testify
that I make this declaration in the ordinary words and
sense of the oath, without any evasion, equivocation,
or mental reservation whatever." There was a fourth pas-
sage to which he would refer hereafter. This oath was to
be found in the Emancipation Act of 1829, one of the authors
of which was Sir Robert Peel, and the reasons which in-
duced Sir Robert Peel to introduce that oath into the bill
were to be found in a memorandum contained in his memoirs
lately published. The first clause of the oath he proposed
to expunge altogether. It was absurd to suppose that any
member of the house believed that princes deposed by the
Pope might lawfully be murdered by their subjects. On
behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, ho declared it was
an insult to suggest that such opinions were entertained by
the Church or by Roman Catholids. The clause pledging
Roman Catholic members to defend to the utmost of their
power the settlement of property as by law established, if
taken literally, would preclude Roman Catholic members
from votinc, on any questioii that altered the laws of the
country as they were at the time of the Emancipation Act.
(Hear.) Sir Robert Peel said the words of the Act of Settle-
ment had a special meaning. In 1662 by the Act of Settle-
ment, the Roman Catholics were obliged to give security in
relation to property ; but surely, then, it was not now neces-
sary to retain any such conditions in the existing acts as
those contained in the Act of Settlement. Since 1829, the
Roman Catholics had become larger possessors of property
in Ireland. In a debate in the Irish House of Commons, it
was asked—Would it be safe, in the event of admitting the
Roman Catholics to Parliament, to give them a power in
relation to property ? Now, nothing could be more mn.
founded than the apprehension that it would not be safe to
-give them power in relation to property. They had now
got that power, and no one would say that they had made
improper use of it. He would refer the house to an extract
from the speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, when
he brought in his measure for the removal of the disabili-
ties that affected the Roman Catholics. The hon. and learned
member here read the extract, showing 'that it was the
opinion of Sir Robert Peel that there was no danger to be
apprehended from the admission of Roman Catholics to
seats in the Legislature. Sir Robert Peel, in that speech,
laid it down as his opinion that the Catholic oath was suffi-
ciently binding to secure all the interests of the Church,
without imposing any further restrictions upon them, and
that they should not be fettered in their right of free dis
mission, or in their right to sit and vote according to the
dictates of their conscience in Parliament. Thus Sir R.
Peel said he did not see that there was any ground for
apprehending that he would vote, speak, or act in any way
to militate against the interests of the Church. He (Mr.
Fitzgerald) would now read that part of the oath in which
the Roman Catholic solemnly abjured all intention of
doing anything. that could at all have a tendency to injure
the interests of the Established Church. Sir Robert Peel
had no apprehension, when he proposed the admission of
Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Church. would
be in any danger from the adoption of such a step, and
the house would agree with him that the oath taken by
Roman Catholic members at the table of the house was of
a nature to .allay any feelings of alarm that the Roman
Catholics could in any sense contemplate a desire to sub-
vert the Established Church. Hd wished to refer the
house to that passage in the Roman Catholic oath wherein
he declares, in relation to the oath of abjuration—" I
make this oath without any mental reservation or equi-
vocation." Now, it had been said by a distinguished states-
man, in relation to that oath, that he knew of no oath that
could be devised to bind a man's conscience, if that oath
could be said not to be sufficiently binding. He submitted
that those three oaths should be expunged, should he be
successful in inducing the house to bring in a bill on the
subject. It might be said that the house ought not now to
proceed to disturb the Act of Settlement of 1829; but he
begged to submit to the house that the act of 1829 was not
afinal settlement of the question—(hear)—and to state that
Sir R. Peel, when he brought forward his measure of 1829,
had not any communication whatever with the Roman Ca-
tholic leaders of that day on the subject, nor with any of
the Roman Catholic party. It had b.en said that certain
securities
should be given by the Roman Catholics ; but the
late Lord Castlereagh, when a similar oath was propoosed,
byway of security, said. it was one of the greatest farces
that could be to propose such restrictions. That was the
opinion of Lord Castlereagh. lie (Mr. Fitzgerald) would
assume that there existed in 1829 fears that were not realised
lies were very der
—and the feelings Protestants respecting Roman Catho-
en of t
then to what they were at the pre-
sent time in this country.anaThe Roman Catholics were then
viewed at a distance,
party in this country op there undoubtedly was then a great
opposed to them, at the head of whom
was the late Lord Eldon. were not, however, now deal-
ing with the question of 182 J
It
ty were dealing with the
state of feeling 30 years later. wsaid that the house
would be inundated with Roman
?rhenlloid have at leastn Catholic
Catholics, should they be
admitted into Parliament, and that the
1a
100 of them in Parliament, and that
constituencies would send in members who
wouldl
hostile to Church and State; but since then what waspgeier
experience of 30 years ? There were, for instance 654 in ,net
n_ now in the house, and of that number there were :n1;
31 Roman Catholics, in place of 150, who it was said would'
be returned to it. (Hear, hear.) Of those 31 members not
one was returned for Scotland, and one only Was in the
house for England. Now, how were they distributed ?
From Protestant Ulster there was not one Roman Catholic
member in the house ; from Catholic Munster, there were
twelve Protestants and eleven Roman Catholic members ;
and four Roman Catholic members ; and in many of the
and from Catholic Connaught there were ten Protestants
Ronan Catholic counties the constituencies sent two Pro-
testant members to the house. He had now gone through
the four oaths, and he trusted the house would permit him
to bring in a bill to expunge three of them. Since the
admission of the Roman Catholics to the house they had
always voted in favour of the civji 4ind•-rehgions liberties
of their fellow-subjects ; and he would put it to the
house whether the Roman Catlilics, as a body, had
not voted in favour of every 'measure calculated to
advance the interests of the people of this country,
and whether they had not voted for the Municipal
Reform Bill, for the repeal of the Test and Cor-
poration Bill, for the Reform - Bill, and " though last,
not least," for the admission of the Jews to Parliament ?
Of the 1,500 who fell at Alma 800 were Irishmen, and
upon all occasions they had never shrunk from the duty
or been disloyal to their flag, or the Queen, or to the Con-
stitution, They had had a rebellion in 1848, and the most

efficient agents in putting it down were the Catholic
clergy. At a recent civic banquet in Dublin the Lord
Lieutenant had taken occasion to express his acknowledg-
ments for the great assistance the Catholic clergy rendered
to the Government. During the last 30 years they had
had many Roman Catholics filling the highest offices in
Ireland, and it would be slander to say that on any occa-
sien they had been unfaithful to the Queen or Constitu-
tion. He did not think any security was required
againpt their disloyalty. Those fears which had been
expressed in 1829 had proved entirely baseless. In
the colonies, since 1856, every obnoxious oath had been
abolished, and the present practice had the sanction of all
well-thinking persons. He .would refer to Canada.
Was such an oath required there ? It was not ; and
Catholics and Protestants mixed together in the Assembly
on terms of perfect equality. It was the same in Australia,
and now in no portion of the empire but at home was any
peculiar oath required. The ground he took was this—that
Roman Catholics had a right to be placed on terms of civil
equality with their fellow- citizens. (Hear.) He held that
principle so valuable, that he should bring this motion for-
ward again and again till it proved successful. His present
application was, that the house should go into committee in
order to enable him to introduce a bill such as he had men-
tioned. The whole of the oaths he had stated ought to
be expunged. As long as there was a separate oath they
stood apart as a separate body. He wished for entire poli-
tical unity amongst all the members of that house, and that
was the sole object he wished to accomplish. He begged
to move that this house do resolve itself into a committee,
to consider the act 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, in relation to the oath
thereby required to be taken and subscribed, instead of the
oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration.
Mr. FAGAN seconded the motion.

Mr. ADAMS saw-no reason for this motion, because he
looked upon it as a breach of faith as regarded the compact
entered into when Catholic emancipation was granted be-
tween the Irish Catholics and the Parliament of this coun-
try, and he doubted very much whether the Irish Catholics
were, as a body, favourable to this motion. If the fact were
otherwise, why was not the table covered with petitions in
support of the motion of the right hon. gentleman ?
Mr. FORTESCUE, as a Protestant member, rose to ex-
press his entire concurrence in the motion of his right hon.
friend (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald). He denied that the oath in
question was a bargain- or a compact obliging the Roman
Catholics not to ask for its repeal in after years. As a
Protestant magistrate, he felt ashamed of being obliged to
put the oath in question to Roman Catholic friends, when
they were called to the magisterial bench.
Mr. WHITESIDE said the argument of the hon. gen-
tleman went against all oaths, which were always re-
garded as having a binding effect, even in Pagan times.
He regretted that this motion had been brought forward
at this time, or indeed at any time, and he thought it
would be wise in Roman Catholic gentlemen to allow
matters of this kind to remain for ever buried in oblivion.
He deprocatod thin effort to get rid of an obligation under
whichthe hon. gentleman and other members of the Catholic
body were enabled to obtain a position in that house, and
places of distinction out of it, and which they willingly as-
sented to. He appealed to every honourable gentleman,
whether it was to be supposed that those who benefited by
the carrying of the question of Catholic Emancipation
should now turn round, and repudiate' those very argu-
ments which Grattan and Plunket had used to induce
Parliament to accede to the passing of that measure.
(B ear, hear.) The right honourable and learned gen-
tleman then quoted passages from the oath which had
been proposed to be enacted by Grattan, and which
he said was of a more stringent character than
the oath which was introduced into the- bill which
was passed. In his speech in 1813,- Mr. Plunket said the
oath proposed to be taken by Roman Catholics went to
deny that they acknowledged the spiritual and temporal
authority of the Pope within these realms. He therefore
answered the objection of the hon. and learned gentleman
by saying that Grattan and Plunket relied upon an oath
which was substantially the same as the oath which had
now to be taken, so far as the Church was concerned. Why,
again, should any gentleman refuse to respect the settle-
ment of property? (Hear, hear.) Sir R Peel said the
words, " the settlement of property," alluded to the set-
tlement made by Charles 11. in 1660. The Roman Catho-
lie, said R. Peel, on being relieved from his disabilities,
was bound to acquiesce in the settlement of property, ands
to respect it, and it was for that reason he said that the
words were introduced into the oath in the bill of 1829.
The noble lord (Lord John Bussell) was opposed to any
alteration in the oath after the settlement of the Ca-
tholic claims, which, he remarked, after a struggle of
so many years, had been effected. The right hon. and
learned gentleman then quoted further from the speeches of
Sir R. Peel, as to the importance of the oath introduced in
the bill of 1829, and said, that if the argument had been
then used, the oath was comparatively little moment, and
the Act of Emancipation would not have been passed. As
to the power of excommunication on the part of the Pope,
he believed that that eminent personage, if he still pre-
sided at Rome—(laughter)—although he did not now pre-
tend to the power of excommnnicating princes, he did still
exercise that power as regarded private individuals. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Cork (Mr. Fagan) had ad-
mitted that the oath he had taken as a Catholic had re-
strained him from doing or proposing certain things as
regarded the Protestant religion. Now a similar feeling,
he knew, operated in the minds of many other Roman
Catholics as well as on the hon. member for Cork, and
this conscientious feeling sustained the opinions which
had been expressed by Grattan and by Plunket,
and justified the confidence they expressed in the
respect with which Roman Catholics would regard
that oath. It had been said that the Roman Catholio
people of Ireland and the clergy never assented to the oath,
Now after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill,
the Irish archbishops and bishops assembled in conclave,
and issued a pastoral declaring that the Government was
entitled to their confidence and affection who had passed
that bill, and raised the Roman Catholic people from their
prostrate condition. There had been no compromise of the
interests of the Roman Catholic people, nor was there any-
thing in the oath which could not be fairly and conscien-
tiously taken by Roman Catholics, even according to the
testimony of the Roman Catholic clergy. He opposed it,
not in any spirit of bigotry, but on this distinct ground,
that in his opinion the oath contained a record of the con-
ditions upon which emancipation was granted, and, whether
it was or was not efficient for the purpose for which it WAS
destined, it was the cordial recognition by Parliament of
the grounds upon which emancipation had been carried. He
trusted the oath would not be disturbed by those who wished
to preserve religions peace and tranquillity.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said tho view he took on this

bill with regard to the disfranchisement of the Roman
Catholic freeholders, and he came back to them with an
answer to the effect that Government had encountered so
much difficulty in obtaining assent to that measure that
every part had been so settled that it would be very dan-
gerous to alter it in its passage through Parliament. They
agreed with that assertion of Sir Robert Peel, for they be-
lieved he had made the best terms he could under the cir-
cumstances ; but he did not believe that either Sir Robert
Peel or the Duke of Wellington shared at all in the fears
existing at that time, and he certainly thought it was quite
unnecessary for them to share in those fears at that time,
and say that because there were persons who had wade-
fined and unnecessary fears thirty years ago it was neces-
sary to entertain them now. But the clause was also objec-
tionable for the good reason that a person who was in the
high capacity of a legislator, and was called upon to act in
everything affecting the highest interests of State, ought
not to be bound down with respect to the particular course
he may pursue. In his opinion, they ought to leave all
these questions to the discretion of the members of the
house. (Hear, hear.) But the matter became much worse
when it was not an oath to be taken by all the members of
the house. If it was necessary to guard their Church
Establishment, and it was not safely guarded without the
imposition of an oath, let every member who went to the
table take that oath. (Hear.) The Attorney-General
for Ireland had paid a well-deserved compliment to the
hon. member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), who declared that
he felt himself bound by his oath not to give a vote
directly tending to the subversion of the Church Establish.
ment. As they had improved last year the form of oath,
so they should this year act similarly as regards the Roman
Catholic oath, by striking out everything obviously
superfluous, totally unnecessary, and, above all, what was
in the nature of an insult to their fellow-subjects. Mem-
bers of Parliament ought to be able to come forward and
vote as their consciences dictated, and they ought to de-
pend on the freedom of discussion, truth, and the general
interests of the country, rather than on the phrases of an
oath. (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Mr. MAGUIRE said the oaths imposed upon Roman
Catholics implied degradation, and ought to be abolished.
The right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General for Ire-
land called upon them not to open old sores ; but he would
tell the right hon. gentleman that it was those degrading
and insulting oaths that kept open the running sores, and
that it was idle for the right hon. gentleman to attempt to
gloze them over by any salve or plaster. (Laughter.)
Mr. WALPOLE wished, before they came to a division,
to state why it was he should vote against the motion He
had listened to the debate with some degree of pain, because
he thought that, after what had occurred last session, they
had done with discussions on these oaths. He had good
reason to hope when they settled the form of oath to be
taken by Protestants—that when they converted three oaths
into one—throwing out of them all superfluous and obcoloto
expressions which diminished its sanctity—that all would
be settled. The question then arose also with respect to
the Roman Catholic oaths, it was debated, and decided by a
large majority, in which the noble lord the member for the
City of London voted. The noble lord argued the question
on grounds which would be equally applicable to taking
any oath. He said the house had no right to dictate to
any member the course he should take on a particular mea-
sure ; but the question they had to discuss was not the form
of oath now, but was there a good reason to alter that im-
posed in 1829, by the late Sir Robert Peel, the author of
that measure which admitted Roman Catholics to that
house, and which was looked upon as a condition of that
admission ? (Hear, hear.) Unless they had strong reasons
for doing so, they would alarm the Protestant mind in this
country, they would do away with that which was considered
by them as a security. If there was nothing objectionable
in it—and Roman Catholics had taken it from 1829 down to
the present—if they said the oath was to be done away
with, tha people of this country might say that they did so
because Roman Catholics objected to take it. (Hear, hear.)
Well, then, if that be so, and if they declined to swear, in
the words of the oath, that they will defend property as
settled within this realm—that they will not disturb the
Church Establishment as settled by law, nor exert any
influence to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion—and
he was not going to say they had any such intention—but
the inference would be, that they wished to do so, and so
considered by the people of this country. When Roman
Catholics were admitted into that house, they bound them-
selves not to do so ; and he was of the same opinion as the
noble lord the member for London, when he said that,
when questions were settled after much deliberation and
long discussion, it was not wise to reopen them again. If
they altered the oath in one instance, they must do so in
another; and, for the sake of peace and tranquillity, it was
better to leave the oath as it was. He relied on the state-
ment made by the author of the oath, he relied on the wise
maxim of the noble lord, that when things were settled
they ought not for the sake of peace to be disturbed, and
for these reasons he should oppose the motion.
M. V. SMITH said he was favourable to the motion of
his right hon. friend, as he was anxious that the special
obligation imposed upon Roman Catholics by this oath
should be done away with.
Mr. SPOONER looked upon the present motion as
another step in the direction of the destruction of the Pro-
testant religion of this country.
The house then divided, when the numbers were,-
For the motion 122
Against it
Majority . ---9
The result was received with cheers at the Opposition
side of the house.

The house went into committee on the resolution, which
was to the effect that the chairman ask leave to bring in a
bill to repeal the Roman Catholic Oaths Bill framed in
1829.

On the question that the resolution be agreed to, the
committee again divided, when the numbers were 7,

For tlie motion
Against it
Majority for the motion -15
The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re.
sumed, when the bill was brought in.
BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS.

Mr. CROOK moved for leave to bring in a bill to place
the employment of women, of young persons and children,
employed in bleaching works and dyeing works, under the
regulations of the factory act.
Mr. KIRK oppogod tho bringing in of the bill.
Mr. MA cARTNEY also opposed the motion, as likewise
did Mr. TURNER.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that it was exceedingly un-
desirable to interfere with voluntary arrangements of
masters and servants. His disposition was, at least at
present, very strongly to vote against the introduction of
the bill.

questiorr was, that he wished the house to reflect whether
it was not fit from time to time to consider the oaths which
were taken, for the purpose of seeing whether there were
any parts of them insulting to a section of the house, or
whether there were not portions which :might be re-
altered without removing any security whatever. Every-
body must admit that if there' were parts of an oath by
which members bind themselves in that house, by which
men holding office bind themselves oei entering their ap-
pointments, which were liable to objections, it was not wise
on the part of the legislature to retain those objectionable
parts. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman opposite
(Mr. Whiteside) seemed to think that his right hon. friend
(Mr. Fitzgerald) had wantonly and uselessly introduced
the subject to the attention of the house; but the same
principle was introduced last year. In the case of the
Jewi Bill, the Jews had no objection to renounce James
11., and the person falsely calling himself James 111.,
_ .

Mr. HENLEY quite agreed with the rule, that masters
and men should settle their differences ; and unless a very
strong case was made out, ho should not consider this an
exceptional case.
Lord J. MANNERS thought that further time ought to
be given to the masters, to see whether they would carry
out the recommendations of the committee.

Mr. PEASE and Mr. GREER7opposedihe motion.
The house then divided—
For leave to bring in the bill
Against it lOB
Majority against —7B
ALLEGED RELIGIOUS PARTIALITY.

Mr. COGAN moved for a return of the names of the
members of the board of superintendence of each county
prison in Ireland, specifying the number of Roman Catho-
lics on each board. The hon. member stated the reason of
the motion to be the paucity of Roman Catholics on these
boards, where it was of importance that some of those in
authority should be of the same religious faith as the
majority of prisoners, which necessarily, in the majority of
instances, was composed of Catholics.
Lord NAAS would be prepared to show at a future time
that the superintendence of the prisons was of an entirely
satisfactory kind. (Cries of "No, no.") The first portion
of the motion was useless, as the names were already on
the table ; and as to the religious faith of the individuals,
no record was kept, and he did not know from what source
the return, if ordered, could be made.
Mr. H. A. HERBERT would remind the noble lord
that the returns could be furnished by the secretaries to
the grand juries.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL forIRELAND said that
a more ungracious attack could not be conceived than
that which had been made on the conduct of the Govern-
ment in reference to Roman Catholic magistrates. They
were rthtdy and anxious to make such appointments when
they could find proper persons to fill the office ; and when
the Marquis of Donegal, who was himself a member of the
Whig party, had lately, in his capacity of lord lieutenant of
the county of Antrim, recommended that a Roman Catholic
gentleman should be named a magistrate for that county,
the Lore Chancellor for Ireland had at once made the ap-
pointment. In reference to the motion itself, he would
only observe that there were no means of compelling any
gentlethan to make known what was his particular reli-
gious profession.
Mr. GREER said the facts of those grievances should
be put before the house, so that hon. members might have
an opportunity .of forming an opinion respecting them. Ho
hoped his hon friend would persevere in his motion.
Some discussion took place, in which Mr. Hassard, Mr.
M'Carthy, and Mr. Timothy O'Brien took part.
Mr. WALPOLE said the appointment of the Board of
Superintendents was made by local authority and not at
all by the Government, who had nothing whatever to do
with such appointments. The hon. gentleman wished the
Government to give a return with the characters of the
members comprising the Board of Superintendents, and to
specify who were Roman Catholic and who were Protes-
tant members. For some reason it was alleged that the
Board was not constituted in a satisfactory manner, but he
would put it to the house whether such a return was ever
before moved for? (Hear, hear.) The Government could
not enter into the merits or demerits of the Roman Catholics
and Protestants composing the Board. The report was that
of the Inspector-General. He therefore hoped the
member would not press his motion.
Mr. COGAN having replied, the house divided—
For the motion 35
Against it B4
Majority —49
INCLOSUItE OF LAND.

or any of his descendants who might bo living and
might attempt to disturb the throne of Queen Victoria ; but
it was not for the sake of the Jew that they left out all
those parts of the :oath.l They left them out because,
as Protestants, they thought they were unnecessary. They
thought it was somewhat of a profanation to come and
make an oath which was a mere mockery and applied to
things that did not exist, and accordingly they did shorten
the oath with the very general assent of the house. That
task having been successfully accomplished, his right hon.
friend said, " You have done this, but there is still a part
of your fellow-subjects who take an oath to portions of
which they strongly object." With the view he took of
the subject, and seeing that this question must be deter-
mined, not by 31 Catholic members, but by the whole 654
members of the house, he was not in the least degree affected
by the argument started by an hon. and learned gentleman
who spoke early in the debate, and which was assented to
by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, that there was
a compact on the part of the Roman Catholics. Were it a
compact or no compact, still nothing was to prevent the
Legislature altering an oath, if they could make it a simpler
oath, one by which they could bind themselves to all that
was requisite, but without any confusion or ambiguity.
There was no reason why the wisdom of Parliament should

not make such an alteration. When the act of 1829 re-

ceived the Royal assent in Parliament, both Sir R. Peel
and the Duke of Wellington stated over and over again
that they might have pursued one of two courses—the one
was to negotiate with the Roman Catholics ; to ask what
oath they were willing to take ; to what securities they
would bind themselves, and to frame the measure upon the
result of the negotiations thus made. But Sir R. Peel said
that was an unwise mode of proceeding ; that there was
another mode which was this, that Parliament should con-
sider the whole subject, and at the same time consider
what was due to the Roman Catholic people of this
country, and what was due for the real security of their
Protestant institutions, and frame a measure accord-
ingly. That was the principle on which they
framed their measure and presented it for the approval of
the house—(hear, hear)—and surely that did away alto-
gether with the idea of any compact with the Roman Ca-
tholics. (Hear, hear.) Now then, let them, as Protestants,
consider whether it was wise to keep those four articles of
the oath to which his right hon. friend had alluded. The
right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General passed rather
slightly over the first article of the oath, to the effect that
they abjured the doctrine that princes deprived or excom-
municated by the Pope might be deposed or lawfully mur-
dered by their subjects; and the right hon. gentleman
quoted a passage from a speech of Sir Robert Peel, inwhich
he said that to ask the Roman Catholics, as an article of
faith, that heretics might bemurdered, was so offensive that
it should be omitted. But if it was right at that time to
omit passages which were offensive, he must call the atten-
tion of the house to another passage in the oath, where a
Roman Catholic member is required to declare that it ilEot
an article of his faith and he does rejirt and abjure the -
trine that princes excommunicated by the Pope might be
lawfully murdered by their subjects or by any other person
whatsoever. He maintained that it was quite unnecessary to
call upon any Roman Catholic to swear that he abjured
such a doctrine; and if it was unnecessary, then it was no
security, and was only a gratuitous insult which they ought
not to keep in the oath unless there be some valid reason.
Then, again, the Roman Catholics were called upon to swear
they would defend to the utmost of their power the settlement
of property as established by law in these realms. Ho
thought this was a very needless declaration, but it was quite
r t av a
snat
swf
ohlel
ot hwesr: t sleft
disavow in
any
syt ri
nu
tceknot
otn. t To hs
ue
bnv ee ar tt
article
the present Church Establishment, as settled by law in
of" This h e thought was certainly framed •to
m Protestantsad e up oin r theeo Tpeeda r 2
frl9,fowhen
r
rethceosnecrielealtre.
or made
why they should not be a little
oaths the o oath
but
twha
es
did copied,not
wiser than the Protestants of 1829. He remembered per-
fectly welljon that occasion, being summoned to a meeting
at the house of Sir Francis Burdett, where for 14 years
they had been defending the cause of the Roman Catholics.
They were asked to consider whether they could assent to
the proposal of the Government of that day; and he re-
membered Lord Althorp left that meeting, charged with a
message to Sir Robert Peel, to ask for some change in the

The Inclosure of Land Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed.

The other business on the paper was disposed of, and the
house adjourned at one o'clock.

WARNING TO YOUNG LOVERS —Master Thomas
Jones, of the mature age of 19, and Sarah Ann Leresche,
aged 16, both of Birmingham, had. " engaged" themselves.
But the young lady's papa unkindly forbade the acquaint-
ance. Thomas, however, hied to Worcester, and procured
a licence. The young lady packed her boxes, borrowed £9 in
her father's name, and got safely away from home. But,
alas fox' the lovers, telegraphs and detectives were in requi-
sition, and just as they were proceeding to church, in bridal
attire, they were apprehended, conveyed before a magistrate,
and remanded—Miss Sarah on the charge of stealing her
father's goods and obtaining the £9, and the lad with re-
ceiving the stolen property. On Friday the prisoners were
brought before the magistrates, when greatly to the satis-
faction of a crowded court the charges were dismissed.
!Volvo' ha mpton Chronicle.
FATAL ACCIDENT TO A WOULD-BE RAREY.-7-AR

inquest was held on Saturday last, at Calver-hall, Branth-
waite, on view of the body of William Garnett, of Colter,
when a verdict of "Accidental death" was returned. Tho
deceased had been to Cockermouth horse fair with a young
horse, and in going home, or soon after his return, he un-
fortunately took it into his head to show his fellow-servants,
a la Rarey, how tractable and quiet the animal was which
he had in charge. Ho first - crept between its fore legs,
under its belly, and having performed these and other
manoeuvres, with success, he very foolishly ventured so fltr
as to creep betwixt the hind legs of the animal. He passed
through safely, but, just as he was rising, the horse, with
one foot, pushed him off a little way, and with the other
struck him on the head; and killed him on the spot.—
Cr tat berbtmi packet.
NEIV WORK ON AGRICULTURE.—We understand
that Mr. W.-W. Fyfe, the editor of the Dorset Coetnly
Chronicle, has in the press a work entitled, "Agricultural
Science Applied in Practice." From what we know of Mr
Fyfe we venture to prognosticate that the work will com-
mand an extensive cirenlation.—Bell's Messeuer,
Feb. 21, 1859,

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1859.

THE ARBIY.

Sir B. Hawes, accompanied by Sir W. Armstrong,
who was admitted to the honour of knighthood at
her Majesty's Levee on Wednesday last, visited
Woolwich Arsenal yesterday morning and trans-
acted business with Col. Tulloh, superintendent of
the Royal carriage department. They were received
within the Arsenal gates by Col. Wilmot, superin
tendent of the gun factories ; Capt. Gordon, prin-
cipal military storekeeper ; and Mr. J. Anderson,
inspector of machinery. It is rumoured that the
appointment of Sir W. Armstrong as engineer to
the War Department for rifled ordnance is the first
step towards the improved arrangements about to
be issued for carrying out with greater efficiency
and economy the duties of the manufacturing de-
partments of the Arsenal by civil officers in the
place of those of the Royal Artillery, as at present.
The subject is at present under the scrutiny and in-
vestigation of some of the members of the House of
Commons, and will be brought before the house,
together with other important matters connected
with the Royal Arsenal during the present session
of Parliament. One of the extraordinary breech-
loading weapons invented by Sir W. Armstrong, a
12-pounder, which was received a few days ago at
Woolwich as a sample"gun, was yesterday morning
brought on Woolwich-common for driving and
theoretical firing practice by a detachment of Royal
Horse Artillery, in command of Adjutant Everitt,
when a large proportion of the officers of the garri-
son were present. The most stringent orders are
observed to prevent the near approach of civilians
or any examination of the piece by strangers, under
the impression that so valuable an arm of warfare
may be illegally imitated and manufactured in coun-
terpart. During the few days the gun remained in
store at the Arsenal even the officers or the establish-
ment were refused permission to inspect it. After
the detachment exercise yesterday the gun was re-
turned to the Horse Artillery square, where it was
subsequently housed in a temporary wooden shed
erected to screen it from the public gaze. A gentle.
man who was detected in the act of taking a pencil
sketch of the gun was immediately arrested and
called upon to forfeit his unfinished production,
which he most reluctantly yielded up to an officer
present.

Mr. Warry, the armourer sergeant of the 3d
depot battalion of Chatham, having succeeded in
making one of his breech-loading cannons on a
much larger scale than that formerly brought under
the notice of the authorities, a trial of the new gun
took place at Brompton barracks yesterday morn-
ing for the purpose of subjecting the new invention
to a severe test.. The length of this breech-loading
cannon is 16 inches over all, and 14 inches from
the breech to the- muzzle. Its weight is 111 b., ex-
clusive of the carriage, the gun itself being of brass,
and, together with the mechanism at the breech, of
beautiful workmanship. With this cannon ten
rounds can be fired per minute, being as fast as two
men can load and fire it. The balls used yesterday
were the ordinary Enfield rifle bullets and Captain
Norton's paper-coated conical balls, the latter pre-
senting many improvements over other rifle bullets.
With this cannon 10 balls per minute can be fired
at an object at a distance of 2,000 yards with the
greatest accuracy of aim, as was fully demonstrated
in the firing which took place yesterday. The most
valuable improvement in this breech-loading cannon
is, that the firing takes place by percussion, each
gun being fitted for a percussion cap, whereas in
the breech-loading gun invented by Capt. Armstron g
the charge is fired in the old-fashioned manner
adopted in firing ordinary cannon, and where Capt.
Armstrong's gun fires about one round per minute,
Mr. Warry's breech-loading gun has fired 10 rounds
per minute, which rate of firing can be maintained
as long as the ammunition lasts. By a simple
contrivance, which has been invented by Mr.Warry
since the last experiments were made, the cartridge
is cut, the nipple pinned, and the breech closed, all
by one motion of a small lover placed on the left
hand side of the gun, so that it is almost impossible
for the gun to miss fire. After the most rapid
firing the interior of the gun is always found to be
perfectly cool, the opening at the breech admitting
a current of air immediately each charge is
inserted. It is intended to apply Mr.Warry's prin-
ciple to an ordinary 32-pounder gun on board ship
when it remains to be seen whether the invention
will be found to answer as satisfactorily in the case
of large guns as it does in the smaller kind of
cannon.