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

' IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. )
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
Mr. CAIRD moved the following resolution :—" That
it would be advantageous to the public interests that 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,whichwouM
prove most beneficial to the agriculturist, the merchant,
the banker, and the shipowner. The necessity for securing
all the information they could on the subject 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. 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. 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 rootion.
Mr. PACKE said that the returns, if made, woultr 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 there 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, he declared it was
an insult to suggest that such opinions were entertained by
the Church or by Roman Catholics. 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 voting on any question 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 un-
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 Feel, 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
suasion, or in their right to sit and vote according to the
dictates of their conscience in Parliament. Thus Sir 11.
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
itemts intention of
hin that could at all have a tendecy to injure
ofg the Established Church. Sirn Robert Peel
had no apprehpision, 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
Roman houseCathli
would
oe agree with
a
t the him that the oath taken by
a nature to allay any feelings
tableof the house was of
of alarm that the Roman
Catholics could in anysense contemplate a desire to sub-
vert the Establishe Hd wished to refer the
house to that Passagee
e Roman Catholic oath wherein
he declares, in relation to the oath of abjuration—" I
make this oath without mental reservation or equi-
vocation." Now, it had been by a distinguished states-
man, relation to that oath.m,Tallicala,t he knew of no oath that
could be devised to bind a
if that oath
could be said not to be sufficiently conscience,
e submitted
brigd., should he be
that those three oaths should be
successful in inducing the house toP
_Ett_ nbill
ot noonwthtoe
subject. It might be said that the house O'ouj'l
proceed to disturb the Act of Settlement" 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 been said that certain
securities should be given by the Roman Catholics ; but the
late Lord Castlereagh, when a similar oath was propoosed,
by way of security, said it was one of the greatest farces
that could be to propose such restrictions. That was the
opinion of Lord Castlereagh. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) would
assume that there existed in 1829 fears that were not realised
—and the feelings of Protestants respecting Roman Catho-
lics were very different then to what they were at the pre-
sent time in this country. The Roman Catholics were then
viewed at a distance, and there undoubtedly was then a great
party in this country opposed to them, at the head of whom
was the late Lord Eldon. They were not, however, now deal-
ing with the question of 1829; they were dealing with the
state of feeling 30 years later. It was said that the house
would be inundated with Roman Catholics, should they be
admitted into Parliament, and that they would have at least
100 of them in Parliament, and that the Roman Catholic
constituencies would send in member' who would prove
hostile to Church and State ; but since then what was their
experience
of 30 years ? There were, for instance 654 mem-
bers new in the house, and of that number there were only
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 from Catholic Connaughtand four Roman Catholic there were ten Protestants
Roman Catholic counties the constituencies sent two Pro-
testant members to the house.
thellead now go through the four oaths, and he trusted
hhorfe would normpet him
to bring in a bill to expunge three
admission of the Roman Catholics to the lthem. Since the
they had
always voted in favour of the civil and religious
s libertiesgioau
o f their fellow-subjects ; and he would put to the
house :whether the Roman Catholics, as
a
not voted in favour of every measure caleallayted, had
advance the interests, of the people of this country
i
and whether they had not voted for the Municipid
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 Almai 800 were Irishmen, and
upon all occasions they had never shrunk from the ditty
or been disloyal to their flag, or the Queen, or to the Con-
stitution. They had had a rebellion in 1848, and the most