The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-24 00:00:00

Friend as to the lot of the case, and opposed the clause
Upon the same grotinds.
The Committee then divided—
For the Amendment
Against it
Majority --162
On our re-entrance we found

Mr. ESTCOURT proposing an alteration in the Oath
prescribed by the Bill ; the words at present were—" And

I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any in-
tention to subvert the present Church Establishment as
settled by law within this realm." After the word
" subvert" he wished to add the following—" And I do
solemnly swear, that I will sot, directly or indirectly, at-
tempt to subvert or injure," &c.

Mr. PEEL referred to the terms of the oath and of the
declaration by which it was preceded, and thought that
coupling them together they afforded as much protection
as the oath in the altered form, suggested by the Hon.
Member. He begged to refer the Committee to the terms
of Dr. Duigenan's oath, in 1793, which ran thus :—" I
do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any in-
tention to subvert the present Church establishment, fur
the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its
stead." The objection made to this form was that it al-
lowed a Catholic to entertain an intention of subverting,
the Protestant Church provided he d.d not mean to sub-
stitute a Catholic Church for it. Hence he had required
in the oath of the present Bill a positive abjuration of
any intention to subvert, for that or any other purpose.
However reluctantly, he must oppose the Amendment.
Mr. O'NEILL supported the Amendment.
Mr. C. PELHAIII considered the Roman Catholics in
the light of prisoners at the bar, and would therefore con-
strue every thing literally. At the same time, when he
saw great dangers he must provide, if possible, adequate
remedies; and although he supported the Amendment, he
did not wish to throw needless obstacles in the way of the
Bill.

Mr. PEEL reminded the Committee that they were to
look at the oath as it related to Members of Parliament,
and to consider whether it was not sufficient, united with
what was required by the Bill repealing the Sacramental
Test.

Mr. WYNN was unwilling to add to the length of the
oath, as it would lessen its effect.

Mr. C. PALLMER supported the Amendment.
Mr. ESTCOURT thought the addition necessary, and
must divide the Committee, for the satisfaction of those
who placed confidence in him.

The Committee then divided.
For the Amendment 99
Against it 261
Majority -162
Oa our re-admission, we found

Dr. PHILLIMORE proposing an Amendment, which
had for aject the inclusion in the oath of the Church
EstabliAments of England and Scotland.
Mr. PEEL resisted it, on the ground that the terms
were sufficiently general and explicit.
Mr. MOORE then proposed as an amendment, to add
the words from his Majesty's Speech, which recommended
that securities should be provided for the Bishops and
Clergy, and Established Church.
Alter a few words from Mr. PxEL, Lord Mwroar,
Lord STANLEY, and others, shewing the Hon. Member
that his object was provided for by a former clause, and
that the Amendment would put out the words the Pro-
testant Church, the amendment was withdrawn.

Sir W. SAVILLE LUMLEY suggested, af.er twelve
o'clock, that the House should adjourn.—(Cries of " Go
on.")—The Hon. Member then recommended Members
not to employ themselves in suLstituting one word for
another.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS then proposed an Amendment,
which went to compel the candidate to declare that he did
not believe any perm could absolve him from perjury,
which was negatived without a divi'ion.
" The United Kingdom" was substituted for " this
Kingdom," and several verbal alterations were made, after
which the clause was agreed to.
One other clause, relating to a matter of form, was also
agreed to.
Lord CHANDOS proposed that the Committee should

then be adjourned. -
Mr. STURGES BOITRNE complained of the practice
of always adjourning at twelve o'clock. It was not the
practice of the House at former times.
Lord CHANDOS thought it was a proper time to
adjourn, when the House had been engaged in business
since half-past six o'clock.
Sir R. FERGUSSON hoped the discussion would be
continued in a temperate manner, but he was compelled to
say that he bad then sat in that House for 22 years, and
never before saw such a factious opposition.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL vindicated himself and the
party from the charge of a factious Opposition. He would
not contrast the present proceedings with former proceed-
ings, but te was sure that it was his desire that the oppo-
sition should be temperately conducted, white he was sure
that the proceedings of his Majesty's Government would
be conducted on fair principles, so far as the opposition
was concerned. He understood the arrangement to be,
that the Committee should again commence its sittings at
six o'clock this day, and in this arrangement he acquiesced.
Sir R. FERGUSSON was understood to say that he
was sorry if he said any thing which might tend to render
the discussions intemperate.
Mr. MOORE declared, that if there were a factious
opposition, he did not belong to it.
The House then resumed, and the other Orders of the
Day being disposed of, the House adjourned at a Quarter
to One.

PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.

(From the Times.)

In consequence of some rumours which had reached our
ears respecting partialities in the reports given in this Journal,
of the speeches on the great question now under discussion
in Parliament, we referred to our reporters, and we publish
the following statement, drawn up by one of those gentle-
men with the concurrence of the rest. Our readers may
rely upon its accuracy :
" Some complaints have reached us that a difference is
made in the reports in this paper, between the speeches
delivered for and those against emancipation in Parliament,—
that the latter are abridged, while the former are given at
considerable length. This complaint is utterly without
foundation ; and for the truth of our assertion, we appeal
with confidence to the character which this Journal has
maintained for the general fidelity of its reports without
reference to party, or to our own particular views on any of
the subjects which arise in Parliament. The length or
brevity of the report of a speech often depends on circum-
stances ever which we have no controul—,the tone in which
it may have been delivered-411e state of the House during
its delivery, or the lateness of the hour at which it may
have been spoken. When impediments do not arise from
any of these causes, speeches are invariably given at a
length proportioned to the importance of the particular
subject in debate, or the station and importance of the
speaker with respect to that subject—but never with re-
ference to the side he may take. That all the speeches in
a debate of 10 or 12 hours cannot be given at full length,
will be read;ly admitted when we state no paper of our
ordinary size' could' contain them, eyes to the exclusion
of all other matter. This being the case, the only practi-
cable mode of giving a debate is to give the principal
speeches at each side fully, and to condense the others
a sinq.le-.: preseryinz as much as possible the
sithitanee of the principal points of eacti.
" One of the complaints to which we'refer is, that the
speech of Mr. Sadler appeared at greater length in Other
journals than in ours. It did so,—but that was not owing
to aby (Tr part to withhold from the public
any -of Mr; Sadleris 'argot:net+. We stated 4 the tope
that, from the tone in whjch the Hon Member spdke &OM
under the gallery, and from another cause, to which it is
unnecessary again to allude, Mr. Sadler was very hlls-
heard by the Reporters, and we find a 'similar state-
, inerit•to the .iStoniq i4iral4., In all pap?
could be heaV(l, his observations were given Withoiit
abridgment. We will shortly explain the reason why Mr:
Sadler's speech was so much longer in other journals than
in Ours :

W. a;.?irt that a copy of a speech was sent by Mr.
Si:d;e' h i'tae evelnog, on milieu tie ofiltedsea the ti01,g,4
to a Morning Journ4l of anti',.CathOlic principhs, frinn
which it was communicated to others ; and we further
assert, that the speech so sent differed in many material
respects from the speech actually delivered. On this latter
point we appeal to lion. Members who were present, and
nsl,-- whether the fact be not as we assert it. Indeed, we
12a a te'ai,ql to ty, frtms the Hon. Member's own ad-
mission, that the .par of spee..:l!l, as Oven
in this Journal, were what he did 53y and We ''4lbo
that they were essentially different from what appeared to
have been printed in two other Journals from his own
a an uscri pt."
Member spoke very low and indistinctly
in tWs Oft. an 1 genezailj thimlghptlt his
Morning Herald.

MOORE has a new Musical Work in a state
of cnnOderable forwardncsg, which he designates " Leyen-
wl
Many of the old Melodies are selected by
himself, and others supplied and hairoonized by Sir Jo
(tory Ballads."
STE vErrsoN, hi 4 old friend and Coadjutor.