The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-28 00:00:00

Mr. RoDosox said he had meant to say that the meet

ing was called for discussion - and when they were for ap-
plying to the legislature on. Epoint open for discussion, it
was right that a great town like Liverpool should meet
not in, an angry spirit (a voice " Meet where? the meeting
is packed"); but meet for calm and rational discussion.
(Uproar.)
The. MAYOR said, he- felt that he- was blameable for
allowing the discussion, that had taken place. He must-
now call. upon some gentleman to. bring a substantime
motion before the meeting, which there was not yet.
When that was seconded, he thought a discussion might
take place solely on what that motion might be ; and: he
must ask gentlemen-to confine themselves to it. (Applause).
If Mr. Bushell should move that the meeting be adjourned,
and some one would second it, he should then be in a po-
sition to keep gentlemen to the motions before them, It
had always been the practice that an adjournment had
taken place upon a motion carried by the meeting.
Mr. BusnaLL said he had hesitated to move the ad-
journment of the meeting, because he did not in the least
wish to interfere with the mayor's functions. He had
hoped that the mere statement that those who desired to
attend that meeting on both sides believed the building
was totally incompetent in size to hold the numbers that
would attend, and who had naturally and rationally gone
to the building used on such occasions. He (Mr. Bushell)
had thought it would not be necessary to put such a
motion.

The MAToB asked the town-clerk what had taken place
on former occasions. _

The TOWN-CLERK said that the last occasion on which
there was an adjournment was in Sir John Bent's
mayoralty. A motion was put and carried, and an ad-
journment took place accordingly.
Mr. G. Maxwma, said,—l want to ask you, Mr. Mayor,
one question, that is, whether, in the course of the discus-
sion that has arisen between you and the requisitionists,
you, as the chief magistrate of the town of Liverpool, had
made provision for the inadequacy of this hall ; and whe-
ther the Amphitheatre had been engaged by you in that
capacity ?
The MAYOL—I distinctly answer Mr. Maxwell's ques-
tion, and state that my mind was a perfect blank as to the
adjournment before I came to this meeting.
Mr. ASPINALL.—That is not an answer to the question.
The MAYOR.—Mr. Maxwell asked me whether I had
engaged the Amphitheatre. I have not engaged the
Amphitheatre, and will take care that the Corporation
money does not pay for it. (Loud applause.)
Mr. EABLE.—The gentlemen behind me are in a quan-
dary—(laughter)—but I can tell you all the secret worth.
knowing. (Laughter, applause, and hisses.) The Amphi-
theatre was engaged at noon, yesterday, conditionally.
(Hear, hear, and cries of " Vote vote," and "Adjourn.")
The MAYOR again rose, and said—l tell you, it is my
duty to you, gentlemen, and myself, whose time is as pre-
cious as your own, to ask that a motion should be pro-
posed, or else I will not permit any of these discussions to
take place.
Mr. BtlllitliLL then moved the adjournment of the
meeting. If they had been foxes, as they had been ac-
, of Wing, they Oda %WV bye deg thAt

which was empty a little before, but they did not do it.
They relied upon the justice and truth of the cause that
they advocated, and they did not resort to any trick. He
moved an adjournment to the area of the Exchange.
(Cries of "No, no," and great confusion.)
Mr. ASPINALL.—Make it Clayton-square.
The Rev. Dr. M'NEinz here made his appearance, and
was greeted with alternate cheering and hooting. He
said—Mr. Mayor, I rise to second the proposal Mr. Bushell
has made. If fair discussion be the object, the opportunity
is now given for fair-play. (Applause and uproar.) If the
object be to take advantage of a mistake on the part of the
public going elsewhere. (No, no, laughter, and uproar.) But
I say was it not a mistake ? (No, no; and a voice " Did not
the mayor call a meeting here ?") If the object be fair
discussion, why will you put it on record that, because you
seem to have a majority in this room, you refuse to go to
the area of the Exchange ? (No, no, and uproar). It will
go all over the world that you are afraid of discussion.
You have got ib few hundreds of people in a small room,
and you are afraid to meet the question. Liverpool—
(groans.) I second the motion. (Laughter and uproar).
Mr. JAMES TIMER supported the motion. He was pro-
ceeding to address the meeting, but was prevented by
noise and uproar.
The MAYOR said if they did not listen to every gentle-
man who wished to address them, he should take the
matter into his own hands and adjourn the meeting tine
dia. (Applause and uproar.)
Mr. RATIEBONE.—Mr. Mayor, I wish to move an
amendment. (Cries of " Vote, vote," " The foxes," &c.)

The MAYOR said that the amendment was in order.

Mr. RITHBONE.—I ask any man of common sense
whether we, upon this grave question—and an important
question it is—l ask anybody whether a discussion in the
open air or on the Exchange would be of such a character
as so grave a question requires ? I say it would not ; and
therefore I move, as an amendment, that the mayor
remain here, and that the discussion goes on here. (Ap-
plause, uproar, and cries of " Adjourn.")
Mr. MAXWELL seconded the amendment.

After some discussion, in which Mr. CHARLES TURNER
contended that it was not a proper amendment, inasmuch
as it was only a negative,
Mr. Thos. BOLTON said he had attended there punc-
tually. The building was not full, and he never knew an
adjournment under such circumstances. (Cries of " Vote,
vote.")

Tl 4 TOWN-CLERK then read over the resolution and
amendment, when the latter was put and carried by a
very small majority, followed by cries of " oh, oh," and
loud applause.

The4l.A.Yoic then announced that the Rev. Mr. POLLOCK
had a resolution to submit. Mr. Pollock stood forward,
and was received with mingled applause and disappro-
bation.

Mr. THOS. BOLD' would move that the meeting be ad-
journed till twelve o'clock on the morrow at the Amphi-
theatre. ("No, no," and laughter.)
Mr. Amur then stood forward, when the Mayor said.
that Mr. Bold was in possession of the chair.
Mr. BOLD said his reason for the motion was, that he
did not think that either party was prepared to enter into•
the discussion in the way that they should. (Laughter.)-
, They had better adjourn till next day at twelve, and then
there would be no charge of packing. (Laughter.)
Mr. JAMES TYREE believed, with Mr. Bold, that it
would not give satisfaction to the town or the country to
have a packed place any way. He was against any pack-
ing at the Amphitheatre ; but let a public building be
selected by his worship, and have fair play, on to-morrow,
or some other day. Could that meeting he should ask
the Mayor, possibly show the feeling of the town ?
A protracted altercation took place in reference to Mr.
Bold's motion, which was participated in by Mr. J. Aikin,
Mr. J. R. Jeffery, and others.
The MAYOR decided that Mr. Bold-s amendment was
in order, and put it to the meeting.;- but it was- lost by a
large majority. The declaration of this result was the
signal for renewed cheering, hissing, and uproar.
The Rev. W. POLLOCK then rose, and said It is not,
in my humble judgment, upon any trifling or light occa-
sion that the chief magistrate of this borough should be
called upon to convene a public meeting- of the- inha-
bitants of this town ; and especially if, as appears t 3 have
taken place already, the subject under discussion is likely
to elicit or provoke any division of the public mind. And
I am most willing to admit that, at a moment like the
present, the-true friends of the country ought not to be
easily induced-to array themselves on any question in open
opposition-to the responsible advisers of the crown. (Hear,
bear.) Never. ministry needed more than they at the pre-
sent crisis- the blessing of God, from above and below,
the cordial support of a united nation. But, sir,—
[At this juncture, the numbers who hnd.hitherto been
patiently waiting at the Ampitheatre, having heard that
the proceedings had. commenced, rushed into the room;
and for some minutes considerable confusion ensued-
The comnaritively small room was spedily filled. the-
passages and various approaches being crowded by
struggling, crowds, who stamped upon the floors and..
battered at the walls almost unceasingly, producing. the=
greatest uproar. Order having been partially restored.]

The Rev. W. PoLLocit resumed his address. But
there were occasions in which it was forbidden them to.
take council with inaction and inexpediency, or even with
their own earnest longings after unanimity and peace ;
and he, for one, believed •that such an oecsasion had arisen
—an occasion which justified them in imposing on the
public the-burden of the present meeting, and which called
also for their prompt and peremptory resistance to a
measure now in progress-through the Lower House of Par-
liament. Mr. Mayor, (said he,) I shall endeavour, as briefly
as possible, and in justice to my own feelings, and in a
manner as little painful as possible to the feelings of
others—for, I utterly disclaim a desire to wound the
feelings of any man ; and if I do vound any man's
feelings, Lwound my own in doing so—l shall endeavour
in this wsy to state as, briefly, and, I trust, as fairly as
possible the facts of thatase. (Hear, hear 4 There have ,
been hitherto oaths imposed upon all members of parlia-
ment, upon their admission to seats in the house. Some of
these oaths are of very- ancient date, and:they are, and
always have been, imposed upon the Protestant members
of the house. One of these is of a more recent origin,
having been enacted for the first time, so lately as 1829, as
part of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill. It is
now proposed by Lord John Russell, and, therefore, by
Her Majesty's Government, to abolish all the oaths at
present in existence, and to substitute for. them one new
oath to- be taken by alb members of the house. Now,.
sir, we believe —we who have signed this requisition—
believein our consciences that the most serious objections
are to.be taken to the measure in question, and we are-.
here to, state them. I think I should best do so by con—
sidering the oaths of which I have spoken separately::
first, the oaths which have hitherto.. been taken by
Protestant members of the legislature; and afterward,
the oath which has been taken since 1829, by the Roman
Catholic members er the house. By the Protestant oaths
the members were bound to true and faithful allegiance to
the crown; they were further boundto acknowledge the
right and lawful succession of the,. sovereigns of this
country; they were bound to declare-that the sovereigns
of this country were supreme over. all estates of men
therein, both ecclesiastical and they were further
bound to the denial that the subjects of those sovereigns
might be absolved by the Pope from their allegiance.
(Ah I ah ! and great groaning.) That was the oath at all
events. (Cheering.) They were bound to deny that
princes excommunicated by the Pope might be lawfully
deposed or murdered ; and, in addition, they were bound
to acknowledge- in every thing the entire supremacy of
the crown.

[The interruption by which M. Pollock had been met
throughout his address here became so loud and incessant,
that the rev. gentleman was (breed to desist from speak-
ing, his observations being entirely drowned in the
tumult, loud,eries for adjournment forming a considerable
inrtion of the interruption. In, the body of the hall an
dividual raised upon the shoulders of those surrounding
him endeavoured to say something, but he entirely failed
in being heard, the cries for adjournment becoming still
more loud, and more urgent than before.]
The 3/Alma said that as the meeting had already
decided on the question of adjournment, he could only
regret that the parties who now demanded it had not
attendawhen the meeting commenced.

[The clamour, instead ordiminishing, if pomible became
still greater, the people.. outside battering the doors com-
munieating from the magistrates' room, which, like ths,
passages, was crammed.with human beings.]
The Miyox announced that he had sent for the Towu--
clerk, in order that he- might consult with him as to the
mum best for adoptipn,
Mr. Ja_siss_Arixr*, who said he rose to a point of order,
was heard amid the deafening noises,., to assert that the
disturbance arose-entirely from the supporters of the requi-
sitionists. (Cheers. and cries of "Question.")
Mr. Potraocx,.7-That is not a point of order.
The MATos..—Gentlemen, Mr. Plllock is ready to pro-
ceed if you will, listen to him.
Mr. Pol.loCL—Will you let me speak or not ? (Cries
of " Yes, yes," and " no, no.") The further oath to which
he was allv,ding, bound them to,declare " that no foreign
prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, had or ought to
have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence,
or anything ecclesiastical, or spiritual within this realm,"
(" So you say I" from a man, of formidable pretensions,
with a huge patch on the nose, who was reared upon one
of the. witness-boxes.)
A Votes.—" He's a freeman !" (Cheers, confusions and
laughter.)
Mr. POLLOCH.—Come, now, keep your temper ns,y good
fellow, I am trying to keep mine. This is what the oath
says. It is, I say to all you Englishmen, what, at the
present moment, the British constitution says by the oath ;
and upon the face of them these oaths, whether rightly or
wrongly, were distinctly directed against the assumptions,
the pretensions, and the dogmas of the papacy. Rightly or
wrongly, (the speaker continued,) this was the law • and
in almost every one of its provisions some accredited
dogma of the papacy was impugned and attacked, and, in
one instance, the Pope was mentioned by name.. ( A
Roman Catholic : " They might let him alone then.")
From all this it distinctly followed that, rightly or
wrongly, from the day of the Reformation np to the pre-
sent moment, it had been considered wish on the part of
the. British legislature to maintain a firm protest against
the See of Rome, and to throw the defences to which he
had alluded around the cherished protestantism of the
British nation. (Hear, hear, loud cheering, and groans.)
He begged further to draw attention to the fact that the
protest contained in this declaration was as strong as it
possibly could be. It did not deny the civil or temporal
power that the pope might assume or usurp, but it went
to the root of the matter—it denied that he had any supe-
riority, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, or power, ecclesiastical
or spiritual, within this realm. This was the language of
the oath. By such a declaration, the whole power of the
pope was absolutely denied by the British legislature—
rightly or wrongly, it mattered not for his present purpose;
because when it was declared that " within this realm he
had no spiritual or ecclesiastical authority," this was a dis-
tinct protest upon the part of the country. against his claims
to be acknowledged as the head of the universal church, and
therefore the protest contained in these oaths struck at the
very root of the whole pretensions of the papacy, and of the
faith of the Church of Rome. (Cheers and violent interrup-
tions from the Roman Catholic with the patch on his nose.)
This being the clear design and force of the oaths until now
imposed upon the protestant members of parliament, he put
it to any fair, honest, arid candid man—of whatever party
—whether the abolition of these oaths did not involve a dis-
tinct and deliberate retirement from the position taken by
their forefathers, and by the nation, ever since the reforma-
tion—(hear, hear, cheers, and opposition from the Roman
, Catholics)--wlntlia A OA act di ti inyolyt th con-

fession that until now they had been in error in this
matter, and they were either ashamed or afraid to legislate
any longer in the distinctive character and attitude of a
Protestant nation. (Great cheering and opposition.) It
was upon these grounds that, in the first instance, he
should have the honour to submit the following resolution,
which, as far as he understood the case, and could enter
into the minds of others, he could not see that any man
in that meeting ought to oppose. The resolution was—
" That in the opinion of this meeting the measure pro-
posed by Lord J. Russell for the abolition of the oaths at
present taken by members of parliament, and for the
substitution of a new oath instead thereof, involved a
serious invasion of the Protestant character of the con-
stitution." (Groans, ;hisses, and cheers—the former pre-
ponderating.) And here he wished to advert to the
arguments which were brought forward in favour of the
present measure by Lord John Russell, and by his sup-
porters. It had been said—and he should endeavour to
state those arguments as fairly as possible—that the
oaths in question were only safeguards ; that they were
adopted from time to time, as occasion seemed to
arise : but that the dangers which they were intended to
meet had passed away, and the oaths themselves had
passed away also. Who believed that, in the present day,
the Pope had the power of absolving subjects from their
allegiance ? Who believed that a king- could be murdered ?
(Groans and hisses.) Was not the last scion of the house
of Stuart, whose pretensions were denied in the oath of
abjuration, gathered to the sleep of his fathers ? (Laugh-
ter.) Then, again, was there any man who would any
longer, in the face of this Protestant nation, stand up and
advocate mental reservation or equivocation as a right and
moral thing ? (Laughter.) Then, again, it had been
said that it was quite enough to oppose and to deny the
temporal power of the Pope ; but as to denying his spi-
ritual power, it was doing so in the very teeth of the
facts of the case, whether they liked it or not. On
all these grounds men were in favour of the measure
which was sought to be introduce& And they said, once
for all, our liberties and faith were to be entrusted to some
other safeguards than oaths, for if men were otherwise
disposed to be faithless to their vows of allegiance, and
their duty to their country and their sovereign, a sworn
oath would never bind them. That was the argument
fairly stated, as far as his knowledge knew it. What was the
sensible and comprehensive reply to it all? (A voice :
" The Town's-clerk's here now." A second voice : "We
don't-want him.") It was that there was a false impression
abroad on this matter The oaths in question were not
mere safeguards, and never were intended to- be such.
They were more than this ; they were —and he had shown
it—they were protests also. (Cheers, laughter, andhisses.)
They were not mdrely intended to be defences• against
invasion from without, but for what he, for one, considered
a thousand times more important, to be testimonies from
within to the Protestantism of the nation. (Cheers.)
Aye, and they were the only remaining traces of the
Protestantism which once belonged to the British legis-
lature. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was on these grounds
that he protested that these oaths should not be Bar-
rendered. (Cheers and hisses.) If he regarded those-
oaths in the light of mere safeguards, then his regard-
for them would be very light indeed. He had been com-
pelled, by a very painful and very humiliating experience;
to- come to the conclusion that oaths, however strong,.
would never be binding on disloyal hearts. (Hear, hear.)
But, regarding the declarations' in the light of protests,
he- placed upon them the very highest value; and he
treated that they would not be allured to be withdrawn,
for he believed that if they were; they would so far
stultify the past, and also become- disloyal to the cove-
nant- which existed between God and this country, and
they would lose accordingly. (Cheers and laughter.)
It was• said by some, after all, that the doctrines and
practices- alluded to in the oaths were utterly bygones,
and so entirely obsolete, that surer it was nothing
short of folly still to declaim against them. (Hear,
hear.) He' wanted some indisputable' authority for the
truth of the statement that these doctriites and practices
were entirely out of date. He wanted Lord John Russell,
or' any other man who agreed with him, to• show him, on
sufficient authority, that the opinions, practices, dogmas,
and pretensions of the Church of Rome, which were com-
plained of and disclaimed in these declarations, were
absolutely out of date. He should like to' know when
a single• pretension of the Papacy had been abated, or
one dogma changed. (A. voice, " Infallible.") Ex-
actly, infallible;. Lord John Russell does not believe
that, but I do, you know. (Confusion and uproar for
several minutes,) Let my Lord John Russell; fhe can—
(" Three cheers for Lord John Russell ;" cries- of "No,")
let him show me where I can meet with an authoritative
and authenticated repeal of the 3rd canon of the 4th
Lateran council, an. infallible dogma and decree-in which
the absolution of the subjects of excommunicated princes
from their vows of allegiance is distinctly and accurately
defined. Let him• tell me, again, where I can discover that
the Bulla Cana> Elbmini was included in the Index Ex-
purgatorius ; or that the Bull of Pope Pius the sth, by
which he excommunicated our Queen Elizabeth and ab-
solved her subjects from their allegience had, upon any
occasion, been abjured and condemned by his infallible
successor Pope Pius the 9th. (Great cheering, followed
by immense hooting. and uproar from the Roman. Catho-
lies.) I wish to know, again, where it is that the Church
of Rome, through any of her authenticated channels; has
abjured the doctrines- of mental reservation and equivoca-
tion ; those doctrines which she has just canonised in
their worst form by canonising St. Alphonso Lig,ucri. I
want Lord John Russell to tell me how it is that the so-
called spiritual powers of the Pope cannot possibly interfere
with the temporal affairs of the realm; and I would suggest
that he illustrate his argument by the present relations be-
tween the Grand Duchy of Baden, and the Archbishop of
Freiburg. (Great laughter and cheering.) I wish to labow
frOm Lord John Russell and his friends how it is we•are
to know that ultra-montanism has been utterly given. up
in all its doctrines in-the present day, and that it is-ut-
terly out of date ; and I would suggest that he should
give us some explanation of the statements of the Univers
in France, and of Mr. Lucas and Dr. Cahill amongst our-
selves. (Renewed cheering and uproar.) Again, if I
am told that the Queen's supremacy is acknowledgedlby
all classes of the community, I should like to know he it
is that at many public dinners in this country, and I be-
lieve in this town, the-health of the Pope has been drunk
before the health of- the Queen. (Cries of " Question,"
"question," laughter; cheers, and a voice —" Why not'?")
Now, sir, if any person can show me that these things-are
out of date, are obsolete, upon sufficient authority, and not
upon his own individual. statement, I for one do say that
the time for our protests upon this matter has gone by ;
but as long as I am. able to read these things upon the
page of history; as long as the Roman canon law exists ;
as long as the Church of Rome boasts that semper eattem
is her motto ; so tang as by her law of infallibility she
has cut herself off from all possibility of reformatica, or
of change ; sodong...l maintain that those who conscien-
tiously differ from her in this matter; are bound to main-
tain their protest' against her, and to deal with her -as
history deals with her—as the disturber of the peace of
nations. One word, more upon this part of the subleet.
I am sure every person will readily see that there -is a
great difference--between the supposition that we might
be called upon ,to legislate for the first time in this
matter, and' the fact that we are not called upon to
legislate for the first time ; but, on the other hand,: to
sweep away enactments which have been long found upon
the statute books of this country. (A voice, "high
time !" and cheers.) If we were a new country, and had
for the first time to constitute a new house of parliament,
I don't say that I am prepared to go so far as to maintain
that we ought to put these protests into the declarations
of members of parliament ; but, seeing that they have ex-
isted for now 300 years, I do say some good andsufficient
cause should be shown why we are to sweep them all away.
(Cheers, and continued uproar.) Where is that sufficient
cause ? (Cheers and confusion.) Have the protestants
complained upon the one hand, or the Roman Catholics
upcn the .other? They have not. The Roman Catholic
body tame forward, very much to their credit; before -the
passing of the Emancipation Bill, and declared that they
ware willing to take the oaths. I don't mean to say they
were willing to take the very protestant oath which I have
read, but another; the only difference, however, being-
the denial of civil instead of spiritual power. (Cheers and
confusion.) Bat where is the necessity for this change ?
There is no call for it in the country. (Renewed cheering:)
It has come-about in a very shabby and discreditable way..
Lord John Russell, being defeated in alkother efforts, he-
has made for a given purpose, and having solemnly
pledged himself, as I believe, in 1852, that he would not
do the very thing he is now doing, at length proposed—
(" Question, question")—Lord John Russell, in violatieu
of his distinct pledge, now comes forward and proposes. to
abolish these oaths, not that he has any objection to them
in themselves, or their protestant character, but simply
that he may do what he said he would not do —bring in, by
a side wind, the Jews into parliament. (Great cheering,
with, hooting from the Roman, Catholics, and other
radicals.) Upon the question of the admission of the
Jews to parliament, lam not going. to say a single word,
except that it is a matter which ought to be brought
forward on its own merits, and not attempted to be
foisted upon the nation by a side wind. (Cheering.) And I
say more, it is too great a price to pay for it, even if it is
as desirable a measure as some may think, that we should
utterly obliterate, for its sake, the Protestantism of the
English nation. (Renewed cheering and groans from the
opposition.) And now, sir, I come to consider the oath,
imposed by the legislature-upon Roman Catholic members
on their admission into parliament, by the bill of 1829.
It is notorious—and I defy any man to contradict me—
that that oath was offered—rightly or wrongly, wisely or
unwisely—offered by the promoters of the emancipation
bill as a security for the protection and maintenance of
the Protestant religion, the Protestant Church, and the
Protestant government of this country. (Loud cheers)
I say, accordingly, that upon the very face of the thing, if
you withdraw that oath, you make a most important
change in the constitution of both houses of parliament..
I will read to you the words ;—" And I do declare that no
foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or
ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-
eminence, or authority, temporal or civil, within this
realm. And I do solemnly swear that I never will
exercise any privilege to which I am or may become en-
titled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion of the
Protestant government of the United Kingdom ; and I do
solemnly, and in the presence of God, profess, testify, and
declare, that Ido make this declaration in the plain and
common-sense words of this oath, without any mental
reservation or equivocation whatsoever." My position
(the speaker continued) is this, that Roman Catholics
were not admitted—whatever you may say about it—
upon equal terms into the House of Commons. They
were permitted in all other matters to enjoy and share
the common privileges of the Protestant members ; but
there were restrictions laid on them with -regard to a cer-
tain number of questions, which were intended to bind their
hands. They were bound by an oath ; and he would put it
to any man—would the Duke of Wellington or Sir Robert
Peel have supported the bill, and would any member of the
opposition have gone over to the side of the supporters,
unless the oath. had been proposed to be taken by the
Catholics as a guarantee not to weaken or disturb the
Protestant government of this country, and not to
subvert the church as it was established ? (Hear,
hear, and loud cheering.) He would not stay to
inquire whether that oath was good for the per-
formance of the bond. He stood by the simple fact that
Roman Catholics never had7sat on equal terms in either
houses of parliament.. (Hear, hear.) Aud when they
were called upon to abolish the existing oath, it was a
call most distinctly to commit a serious invasion on the
Protestant constitution of England.. (Cheers and laugh-
ter.) So long as the present oath taken by Catholics re.