The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-16 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Sir G. GREY said the oath proposed by the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) divided itself into parts,
and the Government, with a desire to see an uniform oath
framed for all members, would therefore not object to the
first portion of the oath as framed by him.
After a few words from Mr. T. CHAMBERS,
The house went into committee.

On clause 1 the following form of oath was moved by
Mr. DISRAELI :—" I, A. 8., do swear that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen
Victoria: and I do faithfully promise to maintain and sup-
port the succession to the Crown, as the same stands limited
and settled by an act passed in the reign of King William
the Third, entituled An Act for the further limitation
of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties
of the subject ;' and I do solemnly declare that her Ma-
jesty is, under God, the only supreme governor of this
realm, and that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or poten-
tate has any jurisdiction or authority in any of the courts
within the same. So help me God."
The first two paragraphs were agreed to.

Mr. DISRAELI then proposed the third paragraph :
'• And I do further solemnly declare that her Majesty is,
under God, the only supreme governor of this realm, and
that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath any
jurisdiction or authority in any of the courts within the
same."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought he could
state objections to the proposal of a twofold character. In
the first place, the words proposed to be introduced were
incongruous an d useless ; and in the second place they were
positively mischievous. The oath as hitherto adopted ex-
pressed two things—the principle of personal loyalty to the
Crown ; and, in the next place, loyalty to the monarch, as
settled by the fundamental laws of the constitution. Well,
the committee had agreed to that. They were, however,
now asked to go further, and to introduce an abstract pro-
position, which neither their obligations nor pledges of
loyalty to the Crown, nor their pledges according to the
law or constitution demanded of them. What could be the
use or advantage of an abstract declaration or proposition
in an oath of that kind ? There IN as only ono purpose for
which it could be introduced, and that was for the purpose
of operating as a test. Well, there might be occasions on
which for grave reasons it might be desirable, if not neces-
sary, to introduce tests. But what was the criterion of
there being such an occasion? Why there might be persons
whom it would be desirable to exclude by tests—persons
whose presence it would be dangerous to admit. In ancient
times that was the foundation of all declarations regard-
ing the royal supremacy. Undoubtedly there was origi-
nally a very energetic and efficacious test which practi-
cally excluded those who entertained the opinion
of the Papal supremacy. By degrees they came to place
more confidence in their fellow• subjects of the Roman
Catholic religion, and then they took the very singular
course, which they had now agreed to depart from—that
was, to exonerate from the test the very persons whom
it was intended to exclude, and leaving it applicable to
those whom it was well known did not hold the opinion
objected to. Having agreed, however, that the time had
come when they might depart from that course, were they
to introduce an abstract proposition which would bo useless
as a test, and which, in fact, was useless for any purpose?
Was there any human being in her Majesty's dominions
who doubted that her Majesty, under God, was the only
supreme governor of these realms ? Could any man take
the oath of allegiance to her Majesty, and faithfully pro-
mise to maintain the succession to the Crown as by law
ordained, and at the same time could it be necessary to re-
quire him to go on to declare that her Majesty was the only
supremo governor of the realm ? It aimed at an absurdity
which was entertained by nobody ; it expressed a mere
political truism which all acknowledged, and unless they
meant to introduce all the other truisms of the constitution
and the prerogatives of the Crown, and, in fact, to make
the oath a concise political treatise, what would be the
advantage of introdicing such a declaration ? And was
not the next part of the amendment open to still stronger
objection ? " That no foreign prince, prolate, state, or
potentate hath any jurisdiction or authority in any of the
courts within the same." Most lame and impotent con-
' elusion ! Why, whoever did say that any foreign prince
had any jurisdiction within any of the courts of this king-
dom ? The truth was, they were enunciating as a truism
—as a platitude as absolute as ever was put into words—a
thing which was never aimed at or touched by any of the
previous tests. Well, then, for the purposes of a test, this
declaration was useless and absurd. But was it harmless?
Why it limited the jurisdiction and authority of her Ma-
jesty, instead of embodying the recognition which should
be made of it. Did any of the old statutes so limit it ?
They must express the law of supremacy as it stood upon
the statute-book, or not at all. That law so expressed
was the law of the land, and was binding upon all men,
whether they took the oath or not. If, however, they
would suggest limited notions of the Royal supremacy
they could not take a better course than to oblige persons
who came to that house to show that no foreign prince or
potentate had any jurisdiction within the courts of this
realm. lie trusted, therefore, the committee would not
adopt the amendment of the right hon. gentleman.
(Cheers.)

Sir 11. CAIRNS reverted to the days of Queen Eliza-
beth, when the oath of supremacy in all its fulness was
first introduced. At that period the Catholics said they
could not take it, because it negatived a supremacy, and
an authority in a quarter where they believed it to exist.
When the Ministers of the Crown then in office heard this
they prepared a memorandum to the effect that the mean-
ing of the oath was that it implied jurisdiction of a
coercive character, and did not mean jurisdiction in Toro
consczentks. They then readily took it. He could not
imagine what real objection Roman Catholics could have
to taking the clause of the oath as amended by Mr.
Disraeli, unless it was that it did mean something which
they cherished intentions not to perform.
Lord E. HOWARD supported the bill, for which he
thanked the Government.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that the proposed oath was not
a Roman Catholic oath, but was applicable to every mem-
ber of the house, who professed allegiance to her Majesty
the Queen.

Mr. SYNAN, amid loud calls for a division and general
uproar, asked the house to support the Government in
their attempt to settle the question.
Mr. DISRAELI explained that in the formation of the
oath he had been guided by (ueen Elizabeth's course,
and which was regarded by her subjects as a happy solu-
tion of the matter.

Mr. LONG announced his inability to vote with either
side. - -

Mr NEWDEGATE, amid loud cries for a division, said
that although hon. members might wish to dine, he desired
to do his duty. He should vote with Mr. Disraeli, but
would introduce amendments in committee in accordance
with his views.

The house divided, and the numbers were—
For Mr. Disraeli's amendment 222
Against it
Majority in favour of the Government
oath
The first clause of the bill containing the oath of
allegiance as proposed by the Government, with The addi-
tion in reference to the succession as guaranteed by act of
Parliament, was then agreed to.

The remaining clauses were slightly discussed, but
ultimately agreed to. The bill then passed through coin.
mittee.

On the motion for going into supply,

Sir J. WALSH called the attention of the house to the
importance of continuing the construction of iron-clad
men-of-war ; and moved for returns of the total cost of
building and equipment of the Warrior and Agincourt re-
spectively.
Mr. BAILLIE contended that the naval force of Eng-
land in this description of ship is wholly inadequate for
the purposes of defence and the protection of our com-
merce, and at the present moment this country was in an
inferior position both in the Mediterranean and the Pacific

Lord C. PAGET admitted that numerically our navy
might be small, but its force was really greater than it had
been for many years, and equal to the security of the
country, while it was also fitted to maintain its dignity.
The subject then dropped.
The house then went into committee of supply on tho
Navy Estimates.
The house then went into committee on the Navy Esti-
mate; and a long discussion ensued, which turned mainly
oe the conduct of the Admiralty in the construction of
iron ships. This policy was much criticised from a scien-
tific point of view by Mr. Laird, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Flein-
ing, Mr. Graves, and other members interested in ship-
building ; and from an administrative and professional
stand-point by Sir J. Pakington, Mr. O'Beirne, and others
The defence of the Admiralty rested entirely on Lord C.
Paget, who certainly made a very gallant fight on behalf
of the department be represents in the house. The votes

agreed to were :--
Storekeeper-Goneral of the Navy, for tho building, re-
pair, and outfit of the fleet and coastguard, steam machinery,
and ships built by contract, 41,003,501.
Comptroller of the Navy, ditto, 4318,000.
Half-pay, reserved half-pay, ke., 4689,052.
Greenwich Hospital, 4135,369.
The orders of the day were then gone through, and all
but the purely formal business postponed.
The house then adjourned.

AFFAIRS IN MExico.—Advices received at New
York on 3d March, via Havannah, state that the Liberals
captured and sacked Alamos on Feb. 7. The town was de-
fended by the Imperialists for seven hours. The Impe-
rialists continued successful in different parts,