The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-05-30 00:00:00

THE OATHS BILL.

The second reading of the Oaths Bill having been read,
Sir F. TIMMER adverted to the delay which had oc-
curred in the prosecution of the measure, which he attri-
buted to Lord J. Russell having some mistrust of the
prudence of the step the government had taken in origi-
nating it. After an able speech, in which the speaker
said, that so far from the bill being the proper mode of
providing for the admission of Jews into the legislature,
it seemed to be intended rather for the benefit of Romanists,
he concluded by moving that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.

The CHANCELLOR of the Eitel/E'er En said, he attached
no virtue to particular declarations as tending to the
maintenance of the church establishment ; its strength
lay in the opinion of the country. He contended that
Romanists in that house were entitled to the same amount
of liberty and freedom of action as were enjoyed by Pro-
testant members ; and be concluded by expressing his
opinion that Lord John Russell had rendered a conspi-
cuous and valuable service in handing over to the axe of
the executioner a bundle of useless oaths which served as
pitfalls to tender consciences, while they caused bold men
to disregard conscience altogether. •
Mr. NAPTER insisted on the importance of the oaths
proposed to be abolished as protective against foreign
aggression, and contended that our duty to our sovereign
and country should impel us to hold by the securities
which the wisdom of our ancestors-had set up, whit+ were
involved in the Bill of Rights, and formed the basis of
the constitution.

Mr. H. T. LIDDELL said they were called upon togive
their assent to the second reading of a bill both extraor-
dinary and unusual: The noble lord had certainly started
with some advantage on his side, because, following the
example of a noble and learned lord who last year brought
the question before the House of Peers, he had proposed
to do away with certain superfluous oaths which had been•
applicable to an entirely different period of our history.
To that part of the measure he had no objection. But the-
noble lord proposed, as his second object, to modify by the
alteration the oath now taken by the members of the
house ; and the third object he had in view was to facili-
tate, as it were, by a side-door, the admission of Jews into
the house.

Lord J. RussELL.—No: by a front door. (A laugh.)
Mr. H. T. LIDDELL.—%' a front door, if the noble lord
liked ; but, as far as the preamble went, there was no
mention of the admission of Jews. With regard to the
alteration of the oath which formed the great compact
between the Protestants or this country and the Doman-
iits, who were admitted to the full advantages and privi-
leges of the British constitution, by the Act of 1829, he
declared his unqualified objection, and would not consent
to any change- in the oath whatever. Why,. he asked,
should he consent to change it ?—Had any one com-
plained ?—Had any one been obstructed by it in obtaining
admission to the house ? It was impossible to bring a
single instance ; and when he recollected the long and
painful struggle which took place before the Act was ob-
tained—that for half a century at least the country was
convulsed by repeated attempts in both houses in favour
of that measure—that it was only carried after immense
sacrifices, not merely of interest, but of character, by the
ministry who. passed the measure, he, for one, would not
consent in any way to give a chance of reviving those ani-
mosities and straggles which were then happily termi-
nated. Much had been justly said of the unchanging and
unchangeable nature of that mighty engine which still
existed in the Papacy ; and he quoted from an historical
work of Voltaire the testimony-of that able man to the
power and subtlety of Rome. That was the unchanged
and unchangeable system which, had caused so much dif-
ficulty and trouble in this country, and with the support-
ers of which the Legislature had; 1829, entered into a
solemn compact, to which he had' himself been a party,
and which he could not consent- to tamper with or to
shake. When Sir R. Peel proposed that great change
which removed the fetters previously imposed upon our
Romanist fellow-subjects, various securities were sug-
gested to reconcile the people of England to the mea-
sure, and eventually a particular form of oath was the
security adopted. He could not but think that it was an
act of great political rashness and, imprudence on the part
of Lord J. Russell to attempt to disturb the compact then
made by repealing the oath which had been incorporated
in the measure of 1829. Ile could assure the House that
the people of England, and especially the great community
he represented, were most sensitive upon this subject,
and, although he believed they would view with regret any
change which would necessitate-the exclusion of any class
from that assembly, he was satisfied that they would re-
gard, with feelings of the greatest alarm, any alteration in
that form of oath which was- the only security possessed
by the State against the possible encroachments of the
church of Rome. The noble- lord had admitted that one
of the main objects of this bill was the admission of Jews
to the Commons' House of Parliament. He (Mr. Liddell)
had never been able to vote in favour of the admission of
Jews into Parliament, and in 1829, when the question was
first brought forward with great ability by Mr. R. Grant,
he had felt it his duty to vote against the proposition, and
had pursued the same course on several subsequent occa-
sions. He had been confirmed in the resolution not to
vary his vote by the perusal of an able essay, written he
believed, by Mr. Macauley, and which appeared in the
Edinburgh Review, in which the subject was, in his
opinion, treated with ridicule which might have well been
spared in discussing a matter of such solemnity. The
essayist spoke with mockery of " essentially Christian
Governments," and said they might as well talk of" essen-
tially Protestant cookery," or " essentially Christian horse-
manship." Now it was an ancient and reverend custom
in that House• to offer up prayer to the Supreme Being
every day before the commencement of its proceedings, in
the name of their common Redeemer. If that practice
were continued, the members of the House must profess
themselves to be Christians ; but if those who regarded the
Redeemer as an impostor and a cheat were admitted into
the House, he would not be surprised to find them object
to the reading of the prayers, as a grievance to themselves,
and as wounding their consciences. How would such an
objection be met ? The objectors might be told, "If these
are your opinions, why do you not absent yourselves while
prayers are read ?" But they would reply, "It is the
practice of members who attend prayers to secure them-
selves places in the House for the remainder of the even-
ing ; therefore, either give us places which we may retain
without being disturbed, or we shall be compelled to at-
tend prayers which are an offence to our consciences." He
conceived that it w. most desirable to avoid such a scan-
dal as this contingey would occasion. He did not think
sufficient ground had been shown for the change proposed
by the bill, and he should therefore feel it his duty to vote
against the measure.
After some further discussion, Lord J. RUSSELL, in the
course of his speech, argued that the oath contained in the
Emancipation Act had not prevented Romanist members,
with the exception of one or two, from voting for depriving
the Church of Ireland of its temporalities. Mr. O'Connell
contended that the oath applied only to the doctrine and
discipline of the church, and was evident from the votes

of Romanist members generally, that it afforded no pro-
tection to the reveues of the church. Under these

circumstances it would be wise to alter the oath, so asvto
leave Romanist members at liberty to take what course

they might think proper to adopt on any question coming
before the house, without exposing themselves to the

reproach of violitting their oaths. - With respect to that
part of the bill which would admit Jews to seats in par-
liament, he had nothing new to say. The claims of the
Jews were founded on justice, and he trusted they would
not be made the victims of religious intolerance because
they were few in number.
Mr. DISRA.ELI claimed to be a friend to religious tole-
rance, but it was not on that ground he advocated the
political emancipation of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects.
He did so because the Jewish race was that to which the
human family was most deeply indebted, and countries in
which Jews had been persecuted had always suffered by a
decay of posterity. Lord J. Russell ought to have made
a plain straightforward attempt to effect the repeal of
Jewish disqualifications, instead of endeavouring to gain
his object by the omission of a few words at the end of an

oath. The oaths which this bill proposed to deal with
might be obnoxious to verbal criticism ; but it should be
recollected that important political associations were con-
nected with those oaths. All the oaths dealt with by the
bill, however, sank into insignificance compared with the
Romanist oath. A distinction must be drawn between
the Pope and Papacy. The Papacy was one of the great-
est inventions of the human mind, and its influence was
as great now as at any former period of the history of the
world. Three or four years ago the Prime Minister of
this country came down to the House of Commons and
announced the existence of a Papal conspiracy against the
Protestant liberties of this country. Had the Papacy
abandoned the conspiracy ? No; it was not as changeable
as an English minister. Believing that the bill would
excite alarm in England, and revive the spirit of animosity
between Romanists and Protestants, he felt it necessary
to record his vote against it.
Mr. MuNTz always supported Lord J. Russell in his
attempts to relieve the Jews from their disabilities, but
would vote against this bill, because he was resolved not
to interfere with the oath in the Emancipation Act.
Upon a division the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against Ministers
The bill is therefore lost.
The Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000) Bill passed through
committee.
The Drainage of Landsßill was put through committee
pro forma.
The Exchequer Bonds Bill was read a first time.
The house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.