considered that this Bill was a measure calculated to have a prejudicial effect both upon the Parliamentary and the municipal franchises. It proposed that all tenements under 10l. should be rated in the name of the landlord, and not in the name of the tenant, the consequence of which would be, that all the municipal voters of that rating would be swept off the register. It was said, no doubt, that by this Bill occupiers had a right to claim to be rated; but they all knew that under such circumstances few would avail themselves of the privilege. He objected also to the Bill as a piece of mere class legislation, because by it the owners of small properties were made liable for the rates of their tenants, while the owners of large and splendid houses were allowed to escape altogether. Further, it was here attempted, by a piece of mere local agitation, to alter the general law of the land, which he thought ought not to be done unless with the general consent of the inhabitants. How far this was from being the case here, might be judged from the fact, that the town-council of Southampton, by a majority of twenty-three to nine, determined to give this Bill all the opposition in their power, while at a meeting held in the parish of St. Mary—the parish which was likely to be most affected by this Bill—the parishioners were almost unanimous against the measure. If there was any evil existing in Southampton from the present state of things, it was not more than at other places; and if the obnoxious clauses of the Reform Bill—the ratepaying clauses—were repealed, he should not object to such a measure being made general over the country.

seconded the Amendment, concurring in all the objections stated by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Cockburn). The Bill had one object in view, whilst there was a different one in the background. It was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

said, he was very sorry to see his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton oppose this measure: the rates in Southampton were very heavy; there were within the ancient borough 6,000 rated tenements; of these 1,800 paid no rates whatever, and the burden fell consequently upon the remaining 4,200. What was proposed by the present Bill? It was, that where the rates had not heretofore been paid by the occupiers of very poor tenements, they should now have the power, if they did pay, to deduct it from their landlords' rents; or, if they did not pay, that then the owner should be obliged to pay for them. A number of pauper tenements had been built on speculation in the town, which were let to Irishmen, or persons who had scarcely any property: these persons skulked away from their holdings before the rates were due, and nothing could be got from them, while the owners were making from 10 to 12 per cent on their money. It was said, that the town and neighbourhood of Southampton were opposed to the Bill. What was the fact? The Bill had been discussed in every vestry in the town, and at every vestry meeting it had been supported. It was true there was a majority of the town-council against the measure, because they were for the most part the owners of these poor houses which were now proposed to be rated. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also designated this measure as a piece of partial legislation. Now he could state that the principle of this Bill had been adopted in several other towns, and had been found to work, admirably well. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Godson) had last year introduced a similar measure for the borough of Kidderminster, and there were fourteen other towns which had Bills of the same character, and they were found to work admirably well. Under these circumstances he trusted the House would agree to the second reading.

said, he know several individuals possessed of twelve, others eight, six, or four of these houses, which at present were all exempted from rates. These facts showed that there ought to be some alteration in this part of the law. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton said that this Bill would prove a great hardship to the poor. He thought it would be the very opposite; as it would, by bringing in this new class of ratepayers, relieve those who were only a little way above them in the social scale, and who now felt the pressure of the poor-rates very severely.

suggested the sus- pension of this and other Bills of a similar nature, until Parliament should have had an opportunity to consider the general principle. There were hundreds of thousands of persons in the country excused at this moment from rates by reason of their poverty; and it would be too hard if a particular piece of legislation should be the means of including these persons.

said, that there was no doubt the poor-rates fell very heavily on small proprietors. Parliament ought to hold out, by every means in its power, inducements to those poorer classes to pay the rates, in order that they might enjoy the franchise. The area of representation ought to be increased, not diminished. On that ground he submitted that this mode of legislating to serve the purposes of any particular party was bad. They ought not to take away from the poor man any inducement to pay his rate.

said, the argument of the hon. Member for Stroud was equally good in 1831; but the Government brought in no general measure on the subject. The principle worked well in Kidderminster; and he could assure the hon. Member for Montrose that it extended, rather than abridged, the franchise. The Kidderminster Bill reserved the rights of the occupant in that respect, at the same time compelling the landlord to pay the rates. In that borough 1,370l. more, or one-fifth of the whole poor-rate, was collected now in that borough, than before the passing of the measure; all classes being, therefore, relieved to that extent. As a matter of justice to all parties, he thought the Bill before the House should be passed. The principle had worked so well in the borough of Kidderminster, that there was now a Bill before Parliament to apply its provisions to the whole union.

agreed that if all parties in the town were willing to come to an arrangement of this sort, there was no reason why they should not be accommodated; but where there was a difference of opinion in a town, he could not but regard this as one of a series of steps by which the Legislature sought to deprive the poor man of the humane provision, that, as a poor man, he should be exempt from the payment of poor-rates. The law of England at present was, that the rate was collected from the occupier: there must be a beneficial occupancy. This was an attempt to shift it on the property. How it might work as to the franchise he knew not. The objection which he had always taken to Bills of this description, unless they were by common consent, was, that you deprived the poor man of the advantage which the humanity of the law had conferred upon him, that he should not be rated, if his neighbours agreed in vestry that he was too poor to pay his rates.

denied that this would be the effect of the Bill; and he alleged that he had seen the working of a similar measure in Birmingham for more than twenty years, and it had worked very well; the result had been greatly to relieve the poor, and at the same time largely to increase the amount actually received from the rates. At present, parties realised large rentals from numbers of small houses in respect of which no rates were paid; but, in effect, the rent was proportionably increased.

said, there was no clause in the Bill to enable the landlord to compound for the rate. The principle was a most dangerous one, especially on the score of the length to which it was carried. It would create a most extensive disfranchisement, and therefore he should oppose it.

rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the questions of which he had given notice relative to emigration to the Australian colonies. His reason for doing so was, because, as was well known to the hon. Gentleman, the Australian colonies had been in the habit of paying the whole cost of convoying emigrants from this country, while now they proposed paying only half, and getting the same number; and they found multitudes of persons and parishes ready to come into these terms, and get rid of their surplus population, by paying half the passage, instead of keeping them at home at a greater cost. This was what was called assisted emigration, and had been carried on to a great extent. Now, if he was correctly informed, and he believed he was, 1,000 forms for free passages, equal to 3,000 persons, and at the rate of 10l. per head, had been sent down to Dorsetshire, thereby saddling the colonies with the burden of 30,000l. for the conveyance of 3,000 instead of 6,000 persons, who might have gone under the assisted mode, and depriving 3,000 of the benefits they sought, and this at a time when the applications for assisted passages were so numerous, that between one-fourth and one-fifth of those emigrants who have been accepted on payment have to wait, while those who paid nothing were to go directly. He understood that they were not all exactly free passages, for that Dorset and Wilts were filled with families ineligible by reason of their numbers, and who were allowed to pass on payment of the excess. He wished to know if that were true, and therefore asked—1. How many free passages to the Australian colonies it is the present intention of the Colonial Office to give to Dorset and Wilts? 2. Whether it is intended to do the same in other, and what counties? 3. How much these free passages will (at the average cost per head of each statute adult) cost the colony to which they go? 4. How many more emigrants might have gone if the grant had been made to assisted instead of free passengers? 5. Whether it is intended that they should have the preference over previous applicants for assisted passages, and sail shortly, while these latter are detained? 6. The amount of colonial funds at present available for emigration?

replied, that with regard to the first question, it was not the intention of the Colonial Office to give to any person whomsoever any preference. The same boons would be given to all. But very recently two ships were taken up for Sydney. They were to take in emigrants at Plymouth, but very few emigrants were found ready to go. Under these circumstances, the Emigration Commissioners filled up the complements with persons from Dorsetshire and Wiltshire, who were ready. But that was not intended to be a general rule. The second question was answered by the reply he had given to the first. With regard to the third, the cost would be about fourteen guineas each. As to the fourth, it would of course be quite impossible for him to make any conjecture even as to the number who might have gone, if the grant had been made to assisted instead of free passengers. As to the fifth, he had already stated that no preference would be given, nor was any preference intended to be given. With regard to the last question, as to the funds, there were 50,000l. available at present, for the purposes of emigration. And unless some further remittances should take place from the colonies, that was the entire of the moans at their disposal.

But there has been preference. One-fourth of the assisted passengers are now waiting. I wish to know whether these two counties are to have the 50,000l., to the exclusion of England and Scotland? If 1,000 forms, representing 3,000 persons, had been sent to Dorset and Wilts, that would be just 42,000l., and would leave only 8,000l. of the remaining fund for the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. He should be glad to know if any correspondence which had taken place on the subject would be laid on the table. This was the more desirable, as it might remove any suspicion that the arrangements of Government were made with a view to clear the estates of certain Gentlemen at the expense of the rest of England.

would make inquiry if there was any correspondence. He wished, however, to assure the hon. Member that no favour had been shown to any particular parties.

wished to correct an error into which he had fallen, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne), respecting the New Houses of Parliament. He (Mr. Greene) had stated, that some additional expenses had been incurred at the instance of the Woods and Forests; and that he had seen a return prepared by Mr. Barry, at the request of the Commissioners for building the New Houses of Parliament, in order that they might be inserted in it. He (Mr. Greene) had since been informed by the noble Earl the Chief Commissioner of the Woods and Forests that no such additional expense had been contracted for or paid for by that department.

said, that as the noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury (Lord Nugent) had given notice of his intention to move an Amendment after the third reading, he (Mr. O'Connell) would not trouble the House with two debates in one night on this Bill, but would be content with one debate upon the Amendment of the noble Lord.

said, he was not prepared to allow this Bill to proceed to a third reading without giving the Motion every opposition in his power. If hon. Members acknowledged the principle of the Bill, they would not be in a position to support the Amendment. Among other hon. Members, he found that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) gave as a reason for supporting this Bill, that the Government would eventually be compelled to introduce some remedial measures for Ireland; and, according to his characteristic consistency, the hon. Gentleman declared his belief that that Government, who had made so many fair promises, and had broken them, would now perform them. Those who supported the present supporters of this measure affected to condemn the practice of yielding to a pressure from without. But who, he would ask, had so practically displayed that feeling as the men who were now in power? Experience had shown that whenever remedial measures for Ireland were suggested, there was always some difficulty to contend with in that House; but when coercive measures were proposed, there then appeared a general concurrence in any attempt to circumscribe the liberties of the people of Ireland. Thus when there was a debate coming on upon the Southampton Small Tenements Bill, there was a very full House; but when that discussion was over, and the division taken on such a Bill, the House was immediately closed, as if by magic. Was the letter of the Earl of Clarendon the indictment upon which the case of the rights of the people of Ireland was to be tried? The noble Earl had stated, that when he was obliged to apply to Parliament for this Bill, the effect had been to ensure tranquillity, and had excited universal joy throughout the country. If such were the case, upon what could the noble Earl base his appeal to the country? The noble Earl had been emphatically addressed, and had received from the corporation of Dublin the most fervent congratulations upon the perfect restoration of tranquillity to the country. Every count, then, in the indictment answered itself. The Earl of Clarendon said, that his object was to put a stop to that system of agitation which, for a period of thirty-nine years, had prevented the influx of capital, and had paralysed industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville), whose whole argument was based on a quibble and juggle, said that the letter of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had no reference to the repeal of the Union agitation. What system of agitation had been carried on in Ireland, regularly and systematically, for the last thirty years, but agitation for the repeal of the Union? ["Question, question!" and "Time, time!"] He knew well that the noble Lord at the head of the Government wished to bring on the Jewish Disabilities Bill to-night; and many hon. Gentlemen were doubtless anxious that the present discussion should be brought to a close. [Loud cries of "Hear!"] These cheers, then, showed him that more importance was attached by the House to the Jewish question than to the Irish question. But Ministers had always either made Ireland their battlefield, or neglected and misgoverned her. He recollected that the noble Lord, in introducing the Jewish measure last year, had asked, why not admit to the House those who bore the burdens of the country? why should not those who bore those burdens have a portion of the honours? He again asked the House whether they were going to pass this Bill upon the indictment of Lord Clarendon, which was contradictory in every count, and answered itself? But he considered it his duty to take care, as an Irishman having all his life struggled for the emancipation of his country, that no assault should be made upon her liberties whilst he sat silent in that House. If, after the convulsions of March last—and during the Chartist movement—the Government turned out 200,000 military and "specials," and placed the Duke of Wellington at the head of the Army, without calling for a suspension of the constitution, that fact showed that with the watchful eye of Lord Clarendon any danger could have been foreseen and proceeded against without this violation of the constitution, especially where the people were almost all dying men. He appealed to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), to whom the people of England and Ireland looked to remove the evils of misgovernment in Ireland, though that right hon. Baronet was about to vote in favour of this measure. All Irish Members were not chargeable with proposing nothing to relieve the people of Ireland. On whatever side of the House he had sat, he had always opposed that agitation which was capable of giving patronage whilst the Whigs were in power. Why did not the Government at once turn their mind upon the Irish landlords? Why? Because they were afraid of them. When the Government talked of giving to Ireland remedial measures, he would ask what those remedial measures were to he? The land was not half cultivated, and there was no provision for the cultivation of the soil. The effect of this Bill would be, not only to stop agitation for the repeal of the Union; but he would ask where, after the passing of this Bill, would be found the man who would dare to agitate, even for his own rights, for his own liberty, or even for justice to himself? Not a man in Ireland would dare to do so. And this was the people from whom loyalty was expected. Now, he would ask, where the loyalty of the landlord would be presently? Where would be the loyalty of the Protestant landlords of the north, now that it was proposed to lay on them an additional tax? It was well to talk of loyalty; but it would be impossible to procure it without doing justice to the great mass of the people. If the Government wished to preserve the loyalty of the Irish people, they must allow them to discuss those measures which they understood better than the Government. He knew the discussion of the question was distasteful to those who had made up their minds, but it was his intention to oppose the Bill as far as he could; and he would ask those hon. Gen- tlemen who had rejected the leadership of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whether they hoped to sustain their position in the country by their acquiesence in Irish Coercion Bills. He (Mr. O'Connor) would tell them they would come back to the right hon. Baronet: when they were at sea again without a helm or a helmsman they would say to the right hon. Baronet—"For God's sake take us hack again; we are worse off than we were before; we see the folly of our ways—we have no one to oppose the tyranny of a Government, and who is capable of carrying out those healing measures which ought to have followed the repeal of the corn laws!" He asked every independent Member to stand up and oppose the present Bill. Would they tolerate such an infraction of the English constitution as to allow men, without the semblance of a charge against them, and when perfect tranquillity prevailed in Ireland, to be treated like those unfortunate men who had been imprisoned at Kilmainham, and who, because one of them complained of his treatment had been removed from the marshalsea to the criminal side of the prison? The noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), was going to act on the maxim of Robespierre, and to control the clergy by attaching them to the State. But did the noble Lord hope by endowing the Catholic Church to completely silence that revolution which the late Mr. C. Buller said would be incipient as long as Mr. O'Connell lived, but would ultimately break out? He (Mr. F. O 'Connor) said it could not be done. Let them talk of loyalty, but if the struggle came between the Celt and the Saxon, he would rather be found dead among the slaves than alive among the conquering army. Did the Government suppose that America or France would allow them to tyrannise over Ireland, whilst absolute Governments were extending their constitutions and giving the people those rights which they had too long withheld? Let them remember that Ireland was not Poland. Ireland was their superior, and it would be happy for Ireland if she was under half as humane a despotism as Poland. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he would ask did they ever hear of a million of human beings dying in Poland in one year? The Government would goad and drive Ireland to fury. It was true the people of Ireland were weak, famished, and hungered; but it was also true that famished and hungry men on becoming discontented became dis- loyal men; and men who were disloyal soon became dangerous men. He would now, with the permission of the House, read a few extracts—[Cries of "No, no!"]—and then conclude. Who said "No?" Would the hon. Member who said "no" like to read them himself? He could easily do so, for they were written in a plain hand. The extracts to which he referred were the opinions of Lord John Russell on the British constitution, Blackstone, Hallam, and Bolingbroke. If "no, no" meant that these extracts were not to be read, that would not prevent him from quoting them; but if the hon. Member meant they should be read by the clerk, he was quite content. The reading would not occupy six minutes. [Sir G. GREY: You have already exceeded an hour.] The right hon. Baronet reminded him that he had already occupied the attention of the House for upwards of an hour. It might be so; but he had been compelled to enter fully into the question in consequence of the meagre speech with which the right hon. Baronet had introduced the measure. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then read extracts from Black-stone, Hallam, Bolingbroke, and from Lord John Russell's Essay on the English Constitution, all tending to show the value of the Habeas Corpus Act.] The Habeas Corpus Act was the greatest of those laws, and afforded the best security for the liberty of the subject which had been devised; but it must not be supposed that it was invented during that reign. Dr. Johnson, also, had declared that it was in the Habeas Corpus Act that the people of this country possessed the single advantage over those of other countries. When he (Mr. O'Connor) was in York Castle himself, on a political charge, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not condescended to reply to his communications on the subject of his imprisonment; and when he was released and returned to the House, the noble Lord misrepresented the circumstances which had led to his prosecution. He would again quote the noble Lord on the English constitution, and ask the House to mark the difference between the noble Lord's reflections in his own study, and the sentiments which he now uttered with respect to suspending the liberties of Ireland. The noble Lord, communing with himself in his study, had declared that although a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act might be fairly put in force against the leaders of a conspiracy, it would afford no remedy against some thousands of discontented and unemployed workmen. Would the noble Lord now say that this measure was necessary for suppressing a few dangerous men? The hon. and learned Member next, amid loud cries of "time," read an extract relative to the impolicy of suspending the Act, from Lord Bolingbroke, and said that if the House manifested its impatience again, he would read one of Fox's speeches for them. He reminded hon. Members that the reason alleged for the suspension of the Act no longer existed, the state of Ireland at present being perfectly tranquil. He believed the Whigs had done more to violate the constitution, and destroy the rights of the people, than any other party. They had done their best to destroy one estate of the realm. From 1688 to 1788, there had been been a creation of only 86 Peers. From 1788 to 1818, 106 Peers were created; and, at the time of the Reform Bill, during the nine years that the Whigs were almost constantly in power, they had created no fewer than 82 Peers in order to swamp the House of Lords. He hoped they would be vigorously opposed in their present attempt: at all events, if others stood aloof from the contest, he (Mr. O'Connor), for one, would take his stand by the side of Irish liberties, support conscientiously his own opinions, and promote the cause of justice and of God. Believing the present Bill unconstitutional and unjust, he should give his vote against its passing into a law.

said, that perhaps he owed some apology to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, for having reminded him some twenty minutes ago that he had then spoken an hour. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared displeased at having been informed that he was an hour on his legs; but he had spoken now for nearly an hour and a half, and he had occupied twenty-five minutes after saying he was only going to occupy six minutes. Now, on referring to the list of the minority on the 6th of February, the name of the hon. Gentleman would be found voting on the Motion for limiting the discussion to one hour. [Mr. F. O'CONNOR: But you voted against it, and I was anxious to take your example.] If anything could convince him (Sir G. Grey) of the necessity of limiting the addresses in that House, it would be the speech they had just heard; because if all the extraneous matter it contained had been expunged, it would have been a more effective and a far better speech than it was. He knew not that it was necessary at present to prolong the discussion, because the hon. Member for Limerick had thrown out a suggestion which seemed to meet with the acquiescence of the House—namely, to take the debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury after the third reading of the Bill, those Members who dissented from its provisions now recording their protest against it. If that course were adopted, there would be another opportunity of speaking on the question, and Her Majesty's Ministers could then defend the line of conduct they bad thought proper to pursue. The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham might have spared himself all the trouble of reading the extracts relative to the constitutional value of the Habeas Corpus Act. Nobody doubted the value to be attached to the provisions of that Act; but the hon. and learned Member must know that the greatest constitutional authorities had held that occasions might exist when, in order to preserve the constitution, it would be necessary to suspend that Act. An extract had been quoted from the Essay of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, in which it was contended that it was not the object of the suspension of the Act to interfere with any persons except the leaders of an insurrection, who were plotting against the State, and deluding victims to their ruin. Why, it was precisely with that object in view, last year, that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had been proposed; and if those authorities which were read, as to the value of the Habeas Corpus Act, were to prevail against the general proposition now made to suspend it, the House must recollect that they were of equal force last year to what they were now. The Act had not been enforced against hundreds and thousands of persons in Ireland. It had been enforced against the leaders and instigators of the insurrection; and the House had now by repeated divisions affirmed that this was not the moment when the powers entrusted to the Government by the Suspension Act could be safely withdrawn. Believing that that decision would not now be altered, he hoped the House would consent to the third reading, and proceed afterwards with the debate on the Amendment.

said, that as an Irish Member he must decline to enter into any understanding with the Government with respect to his opposition to this Bill. There was nothing in the speech of the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down to show that it was necessary any further to suspend the liberties of the Irish people. He had complained throughout these discussions that the Government had not advanced a single satisfactory reason for this measure; indeed to any set of men so utterly bankrupt in excuses for the proposal to suspend the constitution of Ireland, it had never been his misfortune at any former period to have to listen. The Government proposed coercion; but he should like to know how the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would gild the bitter pill? It might be said, with confidence, that, as far as remedies were concerned, the noble Lord had proposed absolutely nothing. It was true there was a Franchise Bill, but that was all. Out of doors, indeed, there were rumours of some reforms in the poor-law system in Ireland; but if the measures so indicated were the measures intended by the noble Lord, he (Mr. Roche) confessed that he could only regard them with pain and disappointment. The noble Lord had said that England and Ireland were one; but the noble Lord proposed to throw upon the funds of Ireland, and not upon the imperial funds, the charge for the support of the poor of Ireland. But if the Government were not disposed to assist Ireland, still less so was the party on the opposite side of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), the leader of the protectionists, had indicated the course he would pursue if he should come into power. The hon. Gentleman said he would not allow the Irish people the franchise, and would forbid them to lay their hands on the Protestant Church in that country. That hon. Member, therefore, was not prepared with any course to raise Ireland from her miserable and degraded position. Then there was another party, led by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. That right hon. Gentleman had told the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that he had nothing prepared; that Ireland had always been his difficulty; and that we must wait and take the chance of events. Now what did "waiting for events" mean? The noble Lord had spoken of Ireland tiding over her difficulties; but waiting for events meant waiting until the potato, that root which had been the curse of Ireland, grew again—waiting for the reappearance in abundance of that food which had been at the bottom of Ireland's misfortunes. Save him from your potato statesmen! Ireland could not be governed on the conacre system. Then there was another party on the Opposition side of the House, who put forward their panacea for the relief of Ireland. Now, that party was represented by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell); they proposed limitation of taxation to townlands, and the promotion of emigration. The meaning of all which is, "Go to the poor-house or the transport." Now, if these Gentlemen carried out their principles, the Celtic population would be exterminated. They might have fat oxen and grass lands, but the original inhabitants would be in America, there to become the greatest enemies of the people of this country. A headlong system of emigration would not cure a starving people: a quarter of the national debt would not emancipate them. The free-traders in that House, also, whilst they were prepared to govern Ireland by coercion, were utterly bankrupt with respect to the suggestion of remedial measures. The Government were ready with a palliative, miserable though it was; but the free-traders refused to disburse a sixpence for Ireland. He threw out the challenge to the free-trade Gentlemen in that House, which they were so fond of flinging in the face of the protectionists, when the former were discussing corn-law repeal in their free-trade halls. He called upon the free-traders to discuss this question of Ireland with him, a humble Irishman, and he should be prepared to show that she had been misgoverned by this country from beginning to end. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) this question—Was there upon the face of the whole earth anything so anomalous as that they should have at this moment in Ireland the poorest, most miserable, and most degraded population existing, in contrast with the richest, most luxurious, and rampant religious institution in the world, taking its extent and limits into account? The people were actually dying of starvation by hundreds and thousands in the villages and towns, while the bishops of the Protestant establishment were dying in the greatest opulence, leaving their hundreds of thousands sterling behind them to their relatives. That gross and intolerable monopoly stood at the head and front of Ireland's grievances. How, then, if such were the case, could the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) reconcile with justice his support of coercion towards the Irish people, and thereby practically preventing them from agitating for the redress of such a grievance? Why did hon. Gentlemen sit quietly there and neglect to reform the Irish Church, which they admitted themselves to be so offensive to the Irish people, while they were so ready to support the suspension of the liberties of an oppressed people? It was hardly necessary for him (Mr. Roche) to argue the Irish Church question in that House—nobody attempted to defend it by argument; it was like these coercive measures, for no rational grounds could be offered why it should be maintained. Then, with regard to another point, a great deal of claptrap was used out of doors with respect to the social and political rights of Ireland. For his (Mr. Roche's) part, be thought it a hard matter to define where the social part of the subject ended, and the political branch of it began. In Ireland they had a country possessing by nature the richest soil in the world, and yet that country was inhabited by the poorest and most helpless population. Their duty as practical men, was, to bring that rich soil and the poor people together, which they never bad done, and never would do until they were bold enough to give up their squeamishness about what was called the rights of property, and passed a sound, practical, comprehensive, and sweeping measure, regulating the tenure of land in Ireland. They ought to do this without thinking themselves bound to apply the same principles to Ireland, because the circumstances of the two countries in this respect were widely different, and therefore did not call for exactly the same remedies. The Government had done nothing yet to meet the question of the tenure of the land practically—they had allowed the system of extermination to go on; they had done nothing to encourage the landlords to give leases to their tenants—indeed, they had gone further, for they had actually discouraged the landlords from doing so, for the landlords being Protestants, and the tenants generally being Catholics, they had based the franchise upon tenure, and thereby held out premiums to those proprietors who differed in religion from their tenants to withhold leases. Looking at Ireland financially, too, there was much room for retrenchment, and the savings might be judiciously applied to develop the resources of the country. First, they had a mock Court in Dublin to keep up; and he should like to know what good it had ever done to Ireland? A country governed on good representative and constitutional principles would be far bettor without any such travestie of monarchy, which, if persisted in in any other country but Ireland, would have been swept away by the people to be supplanted by a republic. They sot up as viceroy a man who, potentially, was neither fish, flesh, nor fowl—neither a despot altogether, nor a responsible governor. That source of expenditure ought to be dried up for the public advantage. Then there was a million and a quarter sterling levied and spent in Ireland on grand juries—a parcel of irresponsible men who were no longer of any use, and ought to be dispensed with. It was true they had many good roads in Ireland, but the funds for making them were grossly maladministered and mis-spent; because what a board of guardians paid 100l. for, the grand juries often wasted 500l, and even 1,000l., for. He (Mr. Roche) thought he had shown reasons why the Irish people should be discontented; and that being so, why should Ireland, any more than any other part of the empire, have the means and right of expressing their complaints, as legal and constitutional subjects, taken from them? If the Lord Lieutenancy were abolished, perhaps the city of Dublin, which alone benefited by that useless institution, might have some cause to complain; but any loss of this kind would be made up to Dublin a hundred fold, if Her Majesty were to hold Her Court in that part of Her imperial dominions for one or two months in the year, as suited the Royal convenience; whilst at the same time the loyalty and good feeling of the Irish people at large would be strengthened and encouraged. But leaving that rather delicate subject, he would ask why was it that almost all parties—the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and his Friends, the Irish Members opposite, and the free-traders—differing as they did from each other upon almost every other subject that came under their notice, all seemed united for the purpose of oppressing Ireland? Did they expect to tranquillise Ireland by such a policy as this, or render life or property safer through its means? They never could, as they never ought to be able to tranquillise Ireland by coercion and brute force. The middle of the 19th century was not a time when they could hope to succeed by any such measures. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office (Viscount Palmerston) had it made matter of complaint against him, that he had acted as the general liberator of Europe; but he (Mr. Roche) did not find fault with him; but, on the contrary, approved of his conduct in helping other nations to vindicate and achieve their liberties and their rights. But the Government that had assisted the Lombards by its advice, and encouraged them to shake off the iron yoke of Austria—the Government that had aided to unfurl the flag of a republic to flaunt amid the breezes of the Adriatic—the Government that had aided and encouraged Sicily to defend her just rights, and seek the repeal of the union between herself and Naples—that Government which claimed to be the followers of Hampden and Fox, and the admirers of the illustrious Canning, ought not surely to falsify their character and mar their consistency by clothing with irresponsible power a despot in Ireland, or by perpetuating the unhappy and accursed reign of despotism in that unfortunate country, which remained a scandal and a stigma upon the British name among all civilised nations.

wished to make some explanations relative to the statement which had been made as to the treatment of Mr. Meaney, one of the State prisoners in Kilmainham gaol. Meaney had been placed at first upon the debtors' side of the prison; but owing to breaches of prison discipline—the publication of do-coments from Mr. Meaney in the newspapers—the high sheriff, backed by the board of superintendence, remonstrated with him. Meaney set those authorities at defiance, and he was accordingly removed to that part of the prison allotted to felons, and where originally he ought to have been placed, and where, if he had been confined in the first instance, no such breach of prison discipline would have occurred. As Meany refused to pass from one part of the prison to the other voluntarily, the police were called in, and he was removed with great difficulty. It had been alleged that this prisoner was immured in dark, damp, unwholesome cells, and that he was refused all intercourse with his friends. As to the latter part of the charge, they must all know that it was necessary to keep up the rules of discipline, and in conformity with this rule nobody was admitted to see Maaney, except with an order; but as to the former part, that the prisoner was confined in dark, damp, unwholesome cells, he could himself give it a flat denial. The place in which he was confined was airy and wholesome. He had within the last three weeks visited the gaol, and saw Meaney sitting by a good fire, in a light, airy room, with as much of pen, ink, and paper before him as would satisfy even the hon. Gentleman who complained of his treatment. As to the measure before the House, he begged to thank the Government for bringing it forward; and he only regretted that, instead of asking its operation for a period of six months, they had not called upon the House to pass it for twelve months at least.

said, that a large portion of the speeches of the hon. Members for Cork and Nottingham had been directed to him, as if either he was the oppressor, or had the power of remedying the evils of which they complained, and as if he had directed, or had the power of directing, the policy of the British Government towards Ireland. It was quite true, that for him to advocate the suspension of the Habeas Corpus was an extraordinary thing. He appealed to his past Parliamentary conduct, extending, as it did, over a quarter of a century; he appealed to those who then sat with him on the Opposition, and some of whom were now on the Treasury benches, whether any man had been more anxious, or had proved himself more sincere in his desire to redress the social and political grievances of Ireland? More than five-and-twenty years ago he submitted to the House a proposition for bestowing civil rights upon Irishmen, of all classes and creeds, equal to those of England and Scotland. He would quote an extract from a speech of his own (as reported in Hansard) made in 1824, in which he stated that there was no example of any country being in so lamentable a state as Ireland under the British Government. He called the attention of the House at the same time to the anomalous state in which the religious institutions of that country were, whilst his own countrymen had, by the claymore, established freedom of religious opinion. He asked the House of Commons to give the same privileges to Ireland as to Scotland and to England, and to remedy the monster grievance of her Church Establishment; and he predicted that as long as he lived they would never see any real amelioration of the social state of Ireland, whilst that Church existed in its then and present shape. In 1824, when he made that speech, they were sending out of the country 30,000,000l. to be employed in foreign lands, whilst not a shilling could find its way to Ireland; and he declared that it was hopeless to expect any real improvement there whilst 700,000 or 800,000 of the population were enjoying immunities and privileges which were denied to 7,000,000l, who were, in fact, the slaves of the minority. That was what he then stated, and he still maintained it. At the Union the British Government and Parliament pledged itself to give equal rights to all creeds and classes, and to treat Ireland as an integral part of the united kingdom. She had never been so treated—that pledge had never been redeemed. There were still the grand jury laws and the Established Church to render the people discontented and unhappy. Undoubtedly English misgovernment had been the bane of Ireland. Until they rendered to her justice—and by that term he meant placing her on the same level as Scotland and England, both as regarded religious and civil institutions—there never would be any lasting tranquillity. Was it not a startling, a disgraceful, fact, that amongst the poorest peasantry in the world—in the most miserable and wretched country—three Primates of the Irish Established Church should at their demise leave in the aggregate no less a sum than 800,000l., having when they succeeded to the bishoprics no property? Was it to be wondered at, that with such grievances agitation should have existed? He did not say agitation was wrong—they had not been able even in England to obtain much without agitation, and in Ireland nothing. He blamed the Government for not bringing forward remedial measures; and now that their difficulties were cleared away, he expected they would do so. He did not hesitate to say that, as long as agitation existed in Ireland, no Government could bring in remedial measures. Ireland was now, however, declared to be in a state of perfect tranquillity. They had the assurance of the hon. Member for Limerick that he would agitate; but he would readily give his vote to keep the hon. Gentleman quiet; and considered that, so far from oppressing Ireland by so doing, he was performing an act of mercy both to the hon. Gentleman and to his country. He was desirous of freeing Ireland from the influence of wicked men, who had done her so much mischief. He had always found that in every part of the world he had visited, he saw Irishmen as industrious, active, and orderly as any other people, and that oppression had been the cause, and was still the cause, of their being otherwise at home. He agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick, that some change must take place in the relations between landlord and tenant, and that security must be given to the investment of capital. He would conclude by again calling upon the Government to bring in comprehensive and remedial measures for Ireland. The hon. Member for Cork had asked him (Mr. Hume) to declare the grounds upon which be supported the present Bill; it was this, that his vote in favour of the Bill would keep his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, and such restless persons, quiet. In mercy to his hon. Friend, and to those by whom he was supported, he would record his vote on the side of the Government.

had not intended to take any part in this debate, because upon the immediate question before the House—the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—he did not think any doubt could exist as to the propriety of continuing the measure in the present condition of Ireland. Only last week seventeen clubs had met in secret conclave in Dublin. This was sufficient reason why they should entrust to the Lord Lieutenant these powers, which he was equally satisfied would not be abused. Therefore, he (Mr. Napier) would have been quite content to give his vote without offering any observations, because he never wished to obtrude himself upon the House except when a sense of duty compelled him to do so. But, after the challenge made that night with regard to the Irish Established Church by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Roche), he felt called upon, as one of the representatives of that church, to rise and meet that challenge with as ranch boldness and firmness as it had been given. He never wished to be ostentatious of his religion, but he trusted he should never be the man to be ashamed of it. He was ready to meet the challenge against that church upon every ground—upon the ground of its antiquity, the truth of its doctrine, as being conformable with Scripture—the correctness of its discipline—the unbroken succession of its spiritual leaders from the earlier ages down to the present times—all its long catalogue of bishops, many eminent for their piety and their learning, could trace their descent from the days of St. Patrick. Let hon. Gentlemen of the opposite persuasion remember the solemn oath by which they bound themselves on taking their seats in that House. They therein declared that they "disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly renounced and abjured, any intention or design to weaken or subvert the present Protestant Church in Ireland by law established." The Irish Church was agreed to be maintained inviolate and intact by the Act of Union, and with that Act she must stand or fall. When the Catholic Emancipation Act was discussed in that House, it was urged against it that the privileges it proposed to confer upon Roman Catholics would be used to subvert the Irish Church; and pledge after pledge, and declaration after declaration was made that no such intention was entertained by that body; and it had been thought proper to frame the oath to which he had just referred, as a greater safeguard and security to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. He (Mr. Napier) upheld the creed of that church, on which his humble but immortal hope depended. He admitted that others differed with him; but let them show him one point of toleration upon which their liberty was pressed, and he (Mr. Napier) would help to remove their ground of complaint. Nine-tenths of the property of Ireland belonged to Protestants, and support for the church was a tax on property—no personal tax was exacted in Ireland from any man to pay for a religion of which he did not approve; save and except, indeed, so far as funds were regularly taken from the national Exchequer to keep up Maynooth, and for other similar matters. There was a charge on the property, and those who took that property surely ought not to refuse to pay their creditor what they had engaged to pay him merely because he differed in religion. But he would go from the south to the north of Ireland, and trace in all its territorial extension the benefits and advantages of Protestantism. He found it foster no sedition or insurrectionary spirit; and in Protestant ulster in particular, prosperity, industry, and every blessing that gave temporal and spiritual happiness to man reigned co-extensively with that Protestantism, which contained the germs of everything that could make a people prosper for time and for eternity. Upon all these grounds, then, he based his case for the maintenance of the inviolate integrity of the Protestant Establishment of Ireland; and if these were not sufficient to convince the hon. Gentleman who had thrown down the challenge (Mr. Roche), he (Mr. Napier) could not hope to convince him by detaining the House by making a much more lengthened

would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, what the incendiary fires and disturbances now going on in the north of Ireland, meant? If these acts of devastation and lawlessness could not be called sedition, they could not, at all events, be considered to be very striking evidences of the love of peace and order which the hon. and learned Gentleman had so triumphantly arrogated to himself, as being characteristics exclusively confined to the Protestant districts of Ireland. The freedom from sedition that marked these districts, was owing to the fact that justice was done to the tenant-farmers of Ulster, who had secured to them the profits of their own industry—they had it guaranteed to them that what they had sown they would be allowed to reap. This was in consequence of their enjoying tenant-right in that province. And therefore there was not that which alone had caused the agrarian outrages in the south—the plunder of the peasant by the landlord, and the carrying away by the landlord, or the landlord's agent, of the whole of the produce of the land. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had been abused during the course of the debates on this question for making very discourteous speeches; but he thought that other hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, particularly on that night, were equally open to the same reproach. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had given them a speech on the Irish Church, the question under discussion being the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) would not then go into an argument with respect to the merits of the two Churches; but certainly he was a little surprised at some of the claims advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the antiquity of the Protestant Church, and its connexion with St. Patrick. It reminded him of an anecdote he had heard respecting an old lady, the daughter of an officer in the Irish Brigade, who resided at Boulogne. Having been asked if she were aware that St. Patrick was a native of Boulogne, she said she was not, but would not be surprised if such were the fact; because, said she, "the Irish Brigade were quartered here a long time." He (Mr. J. O'Connell) was of opinion, that there was as little connexion between the Irish Brigade and St. Patrick, as between St. Patrick and the Protestant Church. With regard to the oath taken by them in that House, and to which reference had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had merely to say that that question had been already discussed, and he hoped they would never be again obliged to have recourse, in self-vindication, to the short and simple mode in which they had before repudiated that charge. They were willing to give to every man who differed from them full credit for the purity of his conduct; and they would not allow any person to impugn the purity of their motives, or allege that they did not pay a strict regard to their oaths. As to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, he must congratulate him on his love for Ireland; and the fame he had gained as the defender of Ireland, as the man who pointed out the abuses existing in Ireland, who declared what ought to be done for Ireland, and spoke against the temporalities of the Church in that country. But why did he not follow it up? Had he been the friend of Ireland only in the year 1824, and had he been since asleep? How was he now showing his friendship? At one moment he said he had been bringing forward the grievances of Ireland, and at the next moment he was giving a vote to prevent the collection of public opinion in that country against those grievances. And why did he do so? His reason for establishing this most dangerous precedent against the liberties of Ireland, and for trampling them under foot, was to put him (Mr. J. O'Connell) down. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) never thought he was a person of such extreme importance, power, and influence, that it was necessary for the purpose of crushing him to strike down the constitutional liberties of a whole country. He believed, however, there were few men in Ireland who had less influence than he had, and therefore the hon. Gentleman was fighting with a shadow when he talked of putting him down. But if anything could make him of importance in that country, or make his efforts effective and powerful, it would be the singling him out, as the hon. Gentleman had done, and the singling out of the agitation with which he was connected, as the Minister had done, and saying that to put him and that agitation down, they would have recourse to this most disastrous invasion of the constitution. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of getting rid of difficulties—he said one of his reasons for infringing on the constitution was to take difficulties out of the way, and leave Government without any excuse if they did not bring forward remedial measures. He believed he was trying to get difficulties out of the way, for he was assisting those who desired to get rid of the population of Ireland. This friend of Ireland, in the past tense, would smooth away all difficulties; but he would not vote the 50,000l. to sustain the starving people in that country. So far as the hon. Gentleman's vote went, they would be allowed to perish. So much for the hon. Gentleman's humanity, which seemed to be on a par with his policy, concerning Ireland. With respect to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that if he thought he would not oppose the third reading of this Bill, he was mistaken. He had declared that he would take a division on the third reading; but as another Motion was coming on afterwards (the Motion of Lord Nugent, to limit the Bill to three months), he would, for the convenience of the House, avoid two debates. He wished that the hon. Gentleman, at an earlier period of the controversy, and at an earlier stage of the Bill, had come forward to assist him (Mr. J. O'Connell), when he was almost alone in speaking against it. And he might here observe, that whatever other persons might do with regard to the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord Nugent), he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would vote for it; because, if even one day was struck off the duration of the Bill, it would be a gain. He could not advance a single point on the part of Ireland beyond what he had advanced already to prevent this injury being inflicted upon her; but he would say with regard to England herself, they should pause on the dangerous consequences that might result to England before they gave a final vote on this Bill, and put on the records of the House of Commons that they had assented to the suspension of the dearest rights of the subject, upon the most insufficient and ludicrously contemptible ground that ever was presented by any Minister seeking to carry an unjust measure in that House, and thereby establish a precedent which he might yet deeply rue. When they saw the late Ministry going out of office, and leaving as a political legacy to their successors that full and equal jus- tice should be done to Ireland, and when they found that that peaceful gage was taken up by the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, and his fellow Ministers, could they think that within three short years all that would be changed, and they should find themselves without one promise carried out, or one pledge redeemed? Irishmen had thought the men in office were sincere: they had been grievously mistaken. For now Ministers came down, and, flinging all their liberalism to the winds, proposed a measure of coercion far more galling than any which had preceded it. During the sixteen years he (Mr. J. O'Connell) had sat in that House, he had never felt so much the iron of slavery entering into his soul as on Friday last, when this question of coercion was hastily passed through one of its stages; while the Bill which extended to Ireland a petty relief had led to three of the closest divisions which had taken place in this Parliament. This Bill having passed the House of Commons, would be the law of the land in a few days. But what measures of relief had been granted? The 50,000l. would be soon exhausted; and had not the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, when he gave to the Ministry the much needed assistance of himself and his Colleagues, declared that this 50,000l. would be the last sum to Ireland he would vote for? When that was exhausted, what was to be done? Let the House then address itself in earnest to this great question of saving the lives of the people of Ireland. They would forget everything—they pledged themselves not to utter a word of reproach with respect to all that was passed, even including this tyrannous Bill—if the Government now came forward to save the lives of those miserable people. Let the British Legislature, in a spirit of fairness, justice, and humanity towards the people of Ireland, save the lives of those who were starving, and they would bless them, notwithstanding the seven centuries of wrong, oppression, and insult for which they had too much reason to curse them.

said, he had abstained from expressing any opinion on the various Motions which had been made during the discussion of the Bill then before them, feeling convinced that no Amendment could render useful a measure affecting so violently the liberties of the people. He retained unchanged the opinion which he entertained on the second reading, namely, that no case had been made out for the Bill, and that its effect, far from curing the evils of Ireland, would accomplish the very reverse. He feared there was too much truth in the charge brought against the English Radical party. It was painful to him to think that of those who had been the uniform supporters of English liberty, only twelve could be found to vote against the second reading. The hon. Member for Montrose had not defended himself successfully against the charges brought against him. Unfortunately the Radical party had always been found opposed to coercion when out of office, and had uniformly supported it when in power. That party was certainly entitled either to the credit or discredit of this Bill: it rested on their shoulders; for the Government who brought it forward would never have been able to carry it but for their support. The hon. Member for Montrose said his object in supporting the Bill was, to put down one particular individual; and yet he would destroy the liberties of a whole people for the sake of putting that individual down. It appeared to him to be too had that the rights of a whole people should be sacrificed for such an object. He advocated it further, as a preliminary to remedial measures; but he did not show how the placing this power in the hands of the Irish Executive would ensure the passing of remedial measures. He had reason to expect that the free-trade Members who were about to bring forward an Amendment for reducing the duration of the Bill, would support the proposition which he was about to make. He did not thank them for the Amendment they were about to propose; because if the Bill was to be voted at all, there was no use in that limitation. If they were agreed as to the principle of the Bill, there was no use in opposing its renewal. He (Mr. S. Crawford) opposed the Bill because he did not think it would tranquillise Ireland or improve the condition of her people. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin said that the people of Ireland were not called upon to support a church to which they did not belong; but it would be hard to make them believe, that, when the revenues of that church were obtained from the whole of the soil of Ireland, they were not the parties who paid; and he could assure the House that they never could persuade the people that the tribute thus paid by the land was not fraudulently and unjustly extorted from them. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had most unfairly imputed to the difference of religion the difference of condition between the north and south of Ireland; but he forgot that in the province of Ulster the people held the land by a very different tenure, and that was one great element of their superior prosperity. He should again record his protest against the Bill by moving as an Amendment, that it he read a third time that day six months.

said, he had, up to this stage of the Bill, abstained from offering any opposition to it, even by a silent vote. With more reluctance than he had ever before felt in any vote he had ever given or abstained from giving in that House, he had done so, feeling he should not be justified in refusing his assent to what Ministers, on their own responsibility, urged as a measure of absolute State necessity—a remedy, tolerable only under the most urgent State necessity, and for the shortest time during which that necessity should be pressing and manifest. But he had done so, with a predetermination to resist to the utmost so frightful a proposal as that of giving to any Government a renewed lease of arbitrary power for such a term as six months in any part of the British empire; above all, during a Session of Parliament, competent as Parliament is at any moment to renew or continue powers on fresh or continued proof of necessity. He would call the attention of the House to this, as a question of principle, whether at such a time of the Session, specially, it be fit to put aside a statute affecting the very foundations of civil liberty—to part with it, out of our own hands for such a period as six months? He would appeal to those who think a case might arise, under which it might be right even to renew such a measure, even beyond this Session—whether there be common prudence in providing that it shall come before a thinned and wearied Parliament at the very conclusion of a Parliamentary year? He would appeal to those who hoped for hotter things, and had a proper sense of the sanctity of the rights they were suspending—whether they would consent to place them beyond the reach of Parliament for a period of manifestly unjustifiable duration—whether Ireland should hereafter be in a state to require, or in a state not to justify, the renewal? That was the dilemma in which this proposal was placed, He was glad that the earlier discussions had been left mainly in the hands of Irish representatives—those whose country was principally, not solely, certainly, affected by this measure—a measure not to be disposed of as what was too often called a mere Irish question. It was our duty, fully as much as theirs, to guard against the infliction, for any period longer than absolutely necessary, of such a wound upon the vital functions of the constitution in any part of the British empire. If he could bring his mind to consent to all the doctrines of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, still he could go no further than that. But their main argument appeared to him a paralogism, as not arising out of the facts they had stated, nor having any coherence with them. The Government, at first, rested their case on not very sufficient or very intelligible grounds—the flagrancy of last year's insurrection, baffled by the extraordinary powers vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and by his prompt and prudent use of them. Small argument for renewing them now, and for six months!—the continuance of that state of insurrection, mark, being distinctly denied by the Government, both in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and in their own speeches here. It then comes to this. We gave extraordinary powers at the end of last Session; the insurrection was dealt with—defeated—demolished. Continue, then, the extraordinary powers, and for six months! The disease has given way; make, then, the extraordinary and dangerous remedy the patient's daily food for half a year after the malady is subdued. "But," said the noble Lord at the head of the Government—the metaphor was the noble Lord's, not his (Lord Nugent's)—"the bloodvessel may break out afresh; keep on the bandage for six months, at the end of which Parliament will be sitting!" An alarming and painful hearing to us, on every account. We might have hoped that this "winter of our discontent" miglit be "made glorious summer" before that time, or at least that we should not thus early be told to prepare ourselves to sit here till September next—to watch the returning but lingering dawn of the constitution in Ireland. But they have since amended their case for this demand. It is to chock the revival of political societies, and of machinations not now in activity, but which, if revived, would be dangerous to the public peace. Why, then, they have chosen just the wrong six months of the year for their measure. If we were now at the end, instead of the beginning of a Session, they might, with some propriety, come down to the House, and tell us—"At the end of last year's Session, when rebellion was menaced, you gave us a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Rebellion has been crushed. It may be revived in the approaching autumn, the ensuing winter, nay, in the first month of the prorogation. And Ireland may be in flames before Parliament can be again assembled to meet the danger." On such a representation we might be asked to consent to six months arbitrary government in Ireland, as we did last year. But now, at the beginning of a Session, no conspiracy even alleged. Parliament sitting, and as capable as at the end of last Session to put the remedy into action in a week! It does appear they have chosen just the wrong six months of the year, during which there can be no necessity, and therefore no right, to take away, for such a period, the most sacred of all the safeguards of personal liberty to the subject—a statute on which rests, as on a main pillar, the security of the best rights that are his, under the British common law. There was a good deal in the first exception taken by the Member for Limerick, little as he (Lord Nugent) had the fortune to agree with him in his views of Irish affairs generally. "Give us power," says the Government, "by arrest and imprisonment, to prevent the public discussion of matters impracticable," or as the Solicitor General said, "tending not to proper or legitimate objects." Give power to the Executive to declare, first, what legislative measures may be deemed "impracticable," and what may be discussed as "legitimate and proper;" and give power, secondly, to imprison any man who may persist in discussing any measures it may pronounce to be the reverse—a doctrine, if good for anything, not only good for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, but conclusive against the whole spirit of the Bill of Rights. It is a weakness, perhaps the commonest in our nature, to deem only such things practicable as we may distinctly see the practicability of. Thus it might be very reasonable to doubt the practicability of the repeal of the Act of Union; or, rather, how practicable, except to the infinite prejudice of both countries, specially Ireland. But might not some other Gentleman hold a like opinion respecting the poor-laws? Certainly many Gentlemen had expressed this opinion pretty strongly with regard to reform of the representation—with regard to free trade. Nay, one might appeal solemnly to the gallant Member for Lincoln whether he would consider himself safe for one hour, if Government could act penally on their view of the practicability, the legitimacy, or propriety of his project to reduce the salaries of all the Ministers by one-half? It was said that Ireland was just now in a very peculiar and alarming position. Few can remember a time, or to have read of any time, when Ireland was not in a peculiar position. By a strange anomaly, it was a quality in Ireland that a peculiar position seemed to be her natural state. At all events, those were words stereotyped in almost every page of her history. But she was now divided, more than ever, into factions; more of them, and each contributing its spark to the general inflammation, and, worst of all, no man able to control even his own particular faction. What Ireland wants is repose. And therefore (continued the noble Lord), I am willing, not without great reluctance, to grant these powers for such time as may enable the Government to apply their remedial measures to her real grievances; till the knowledge and progress of these remedial measures shall have brought with them their healing influences, and brought the people to a disposition to be governed by hope and confidence in their Government, and not by the mere slavish sense of being under the control of a power that has no hope or confidence in them. Nor am I, I confess, without a kind of suspicion, a strong one, that by shortening the term of these powers, we may somewhat hasten the healing measures in their progress. I am willing to grant these powers till long after the season of short days and long nights shall have passed—till long after the season shall have arrived when the day shall shine for many more hours on the efforts of in- dustry than the night shall shroud the practices of the assassin, the incendiary, or the conspirator—till you shall have seen the effect produced by the promise and advancing maturity of your healing measures on the affections of your people. But I will not he party to a measure which deals with the Habeas Corpus Act as a thing to be shelved as little matters, whether for a quarter or half a year. To subdue is one thing; to govern is another. You may subdue, but you cannot govern a portion of the British empire—God forbid you should be able to do so!—by placing it for six months aside from the influence of the British constitution. Repose from the secret infusions of agitators—cheerful repose—cheerful labour—during the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—I do not, I cannot hope, from it. I can hope from it only a very short pause, while you are giving them proof of your good will towards them. But repose. They cannot repose in the pain, the irritation, the degradation, of this temporary excommunication from their common law and statutory rights. They would be unworthy ever again to be free men if they could. Judge from yourselves. All you can hope for is sullen inaction, restrained from outbreak, while you are giving earnest of your remedial measures. They cannot, with ready hands and light hearts, betake themselves cheerily to give effect to your objects of improvement for them. It is freedom that awakens enterprise, that excites to industry—that makes men cheerily follow the lead of their ruler. If they could meet your objects and carry them cheerily into effect, suffering under exclusion from co-equality of rights with their fellow-subjects, they would be contented slaves, and unworthy over to return to freedom. Shorten the term of exception and dishonour. Shorten the term of duress—during which no good can be done, save in giving earnest of a system of good government. I agree with the right hon. Member for Tam-worth that the personal character and reputation of Lord Clarendon have little to do with this question; and, methinks, it is somewhat unworthy in the Government to lean their case upon a eulogy—to lean their case upon the character and well-deserved popularity—of their Lord Lieutenant. It is trifling, it is unworthy trifling, with such a question to say "You may trust to the discretion, firmness, and high-mindedness of Lord Clarendon not to make a captious or tyrannical use of such powers." There is no man who can rate more highly than I do the wisdom, forbearance, or humanity of Lord Clarendon, or can have a more entire sense than I have of the claims he has established for himself on the gratitude of both countries by his admirable government of Ireland. But here I have done; and I return to my position. What is doctrine to-day, becomes precedent to-morrow. To no Minister, while no rebellion is flagrant or expected, and Parliament ready here to give fresh powers on any emergency, will, I grant, arbitrary power for six months; and I, therefore, lay before you this Amendment, that, in the first clause of this Bill, lines 8 and 11, instead of the word "September," be inserted the word "June."

rose to second the Amendment; and in doing so he begged to observe, that those who supported the Government in the preceding stages of the Bill were placed in such a position, that they had no alternative but to vote for the whole measure, or else lie under the suspicion of being disposed to bind the hands of the Government at a moment of great danger and uncertainty. With rebellion in Ireland, they could not adopt any course the tendency of which would be to weaken the hands of the Executive authority; they therefore took the course of not restraining the Ministers of the Crown with regard to those powers which were necessary for carrying on efficiently the government of Ireland. But in so voting with the responsible advisers of the Queen, he (Colonel Thompson) and those who thought with him wished to demonstrate that they were anxious not to permit the Executive to enjoy any power one jot beyond that which the exigency of the case rendered absolutely necessary. He)Colonel Thompson) conceived the powers to be necessary; and he consented the more readily to grant them, inasmuch as he had confidence in those to whom such powers were to be intrusted. The case would be different if authority so extensive were to be intrusted to men like Jeffries or Claverhouse; but in the manner in which similar powers had already been exercised, he perceived a strong pledge that they would in future be moderately used. Still, he saw no reason why there should not be a limitation to three months, at the end of which period the Government might ask for a renewal of the authority with which this measure invested them, provided they could then prove, as they now had proved, that there existed a necessity for such a suspension of the constitution. It had been hinted that if the conduct of the Chartists, or any other body of men, rendered such a measure necessary for England, he and his friends would find themselves placed in an embarrassing dilemma. He believed that there was little hazard of their being called upon to contend with any such difficulty. But, be that as it might, he thought upon the present occasion hon. Members might fairly be said to support the Government, even though they should vote in favour of the proposed Amendment.

said, that the noble Lord who had moved the reduction of the period for the continuance of this measure from six to three months, had said that he supported the Bill upon every one of its previous stages, because he felt convinced of its necessity, and that he, equally with the Government, desired the repose of Ireland. But the noble Lord had said that the objects for which this Bill was to be passed, might all be obtained within the short period of three months. For that opinion he had given no reasons; and if the arguments of the noble Lord had any force, they would go much beyond the conclusions which he founded upon them, and would make it necessary for the House to consider month by month or week by week whether the time had not arrived for dispensing with this measure. The noble Lord had said, that in his opinion this measure was necessary; but he would not give his consent to the continuance of this Bill for six months. It had on the other hand been made a matter of complaint, that the Government had not proposed twelve months as the duration of the measure instead of six? Upon former occasions, when the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended, it had been for a period of twelve months; but in 1822, about the same time of year as the present proposition was made, in the beginning of February, and early in the Session of Parliament, the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended for six months, as it was considered advisable that the House should again have an opportunity of considering whether it would be necessary to continue it for a longer time. The Government had followed in the present instance the precedent for the shorter term, and had proposed six instead of twelve months, as the duration of the Bill. He thought hon. Members having repeatedly, in the divisions which had taken place in the progress of the Bill, expressed their opinion that it was necessary to extend this power for a time, in order to suppress any attempt which might be made to renew the insurrection of last year, upon the part of persons who might still entertain designs of that kind, that it would be weakening the effect of the measure, and involving the House in interminable discussions, which might be considered as disposed of for the present, and which would interfere with the discussion of other subjects of great importance, if they limited the Bill, as now proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury. He (Sir G. Grey) hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to the adoption of the Bill as originally proposed, and negative the Amendment of the noble Lord.

gave the noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury credit for his kindly feelings towards the people of Ireland in reducing the period of the Bill to three months; but the House having affirmed the principle, and the noble Lord having voted with the majority in favour of its continuance for six months, he (Mr. Reynolds) could not understand exactly the meaning of the noble Lord in now moving that it should only exist for three months. If hon. Members would adopt his advice, he would say do not vote in favour of this Amendment. He knew that an argument might probably be founded upon it, that whereas it was quite wrong to suspend the constitution for six months, but that it would be perfectly right to suspend it for three months. He advised the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, and let the Government go the whole animal.

said, that he had promised the noble Lord to vote for his Amendment; but after the declaration he had heard, that by voting for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland for three months, he should be supporting the principle of the Bill, he begged to decline giving any vote at all on the question.

rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I have risen to bring under the consideration of this House the important subject of the oaths which are required to to be taken by Members of this branch of the Legislature. In the course of the last Session I had the honour of proposing, and the good fortune of carrying, a Bill for the purpose of relieving Her Majesty's Jewish subjects from the disabilities under which they now labour. That Bill was rejected and thrown out by the House of Lords; and it is now my intention to bring the subject more completely under the notice of the House, and to review the oaths that are now administered at the table and necessary to be taken. And if I should be so fortunate as to obtain the consent of the House to go into Committee on the subject, I trust I shall be permitted to bring in, as I did before, the Bill which I have to propose, and to lay the whole scheme before hon. Members. I should state, in the first place, that I do not propose to interfere with, or alter, the present form of the oath administered to Roman Catholics. The form of that oath, after having operated to the exclusion of the Roman Cataolics for 150 years, was deliberately settled in the year 1829—now twenty years ago. The Roman Catholics have since that period sat in this and the other House of Parliament after taking the oath as now framed, and although there still remained some difficulties with respect to the meaning of parts of the oath, still the House and the country in general remain satisfied that the oath is fairly taken and honestly observed. As, then, the taking of that oath accomplishes the two objects of admitting the Roman Catholics to Parliament, and of affording all the security which was desired, I do not propose now to unsettle that part of the question. But if I should ask the House to take into its consideration the other oaths which are taken by Members at the table, I think I can hardly fail in obtaining the consent of those to whom I now address myself, to agree with me in opinion that they do not accomplish the object for which they were imposed. Those oaths are not merely a declaration of opinion, but they define, or are intended as a means of defining, the duties and obligations of Members of this House. For the purpose of being qualified to perform those duties, it is now imperative on Members to take the oaths of allegiance to the Sovereign, and of adherence to the Act of Settlement of the Crown. It may be necessary to impose other engagements, upon which I will afterwards touch; but if it should be found on examination that these oaths do contain matter that is utterly unnecessary, as well as ambiguous, and imposing undue restraint upon a part of Her Majesty's subjects, which are wholly unjustifiable—if the fact on examination prove to be as I describe it, you will, probably, agree with me in considering them to be in so far defective, and that they require reconsideration with a view to their alteration. In considering these oaths I will take them in their usual order, and first draw attention to the oath of allegiance, the form of which is this:—

"I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and hear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria."

To that form of oath I entertain no sort of objection. The next oath is that of supremacy, and I shall now ask the House to listen to Lord Edon's opinion as to the origin and purpose of this oath. In discussing the question relative to the admission of the Duke of Norfolk to the office of Earl Marshal of England, from which he had been debarred by the oath of supremacy, Lord Eldon said—

"With respect to the oath of allegiance that is to be taken by the Duke of Norfolk as Earl Marshal, I, as a lawyer, say that oath contains all that is contained in the oath of supremacy; and I say that the oath of supremacy was added to the oath of allegiance as an explanation, and, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, was passed to unravel the errors that had crept in."

Therefore, Lord Eldon, looking to the opinion of Sir Matthew Hale, considered the oath of allegiance to possess all that was expressed in the oath of supremacy, and that it was only in consequence of a misunderstanding of the oath of allegiance that the oath of supremacy was added, in order to assure the country and the Legislature that the oath of allegiance was understood in the true sense in which it was thought to be taken. The form of the oath of supremacy is this:—

"I, A. B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the sec of Rome, may be deposed or murthered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever."

[O'GORMAN MAHON: Hear, hear!] There can be no doubt whatever that this part of the oath of supremacy is contained in the oath of allegiance. In fact, I cannot believe that any Roman Catholic within these realms would entertain any doctrine or opinion other than the one expressed in the oath; and it is impossible that any Protestant should not maintain the oath such as he had read it. The oath then goes on to say—

"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to hare, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."

Now, it so happens that these words do give rise to doubts which are carried so far in the minds of two or three Members of the House of Lords, that on account solely of the words contained in the latter portion of the oath of supremacy they had refused to take their seats as Peers of Parliament. For my own part, I conceive that the interpretation put by Lord Clan-carty on the oath, respecting which he has written a letter, is erroneous; but, at the same time, I must say that I cannot wonder much at his Lordship's interpretation. All I can imagine to be the purport of the words—

—"no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm"—

is that no such authority is possessed within this realm. But when the Roman Catholics assort that they understand this oath, as I am led to believe they do, to mean that no person has or ought to have any influence, power, or authority over their minds, then, as it is obvious the Pope has considerable influence over their minds, and that his decrees do affect the Roman Catholic bishops hero, in Ireland, and in Scotland, why, in that sense, it cannot be said that the Pope is without spiritual and ecclesiastical authority within these realms. But, Sir, when we come to consider that part of the oath taken by the Roman Catholics which corresponds with that portion taken by Protestants, we find those words:—

"I, A. B., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will maintain the succession of the Crown, as established by an Act intituled 'An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the, subjects:' and that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this realm; and that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do make this recognition, declaration, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God."

Therefore, while you require of the Protestant that he shall declare that the Pope hath no "spiritual or ecclesiastical" jurisdiction, you only require of the Roman Catholic a declaration that the Pope hath no "civil or temporal" jurisdiction. Now, I think it seems to be obvious, if that is a sufficient security to be given by the Roman Catholic, who does pay spiritual obedience to the Pope, and who considers him at the head of the Church, that if this is a sufficient security from a Roman Catholic who is a Member of this House, it is quite sufficient for any Protestant to make the same declaration that the Pope has no civil or temporal jurisdiction in this kingdom. As the matter stands at present, having a jealousy with regard to Roman Catholics, we require them to make a certain declaration concerning the power and authority of the Pope, and having no jealousy with regard to Protestants, we require from them a harsher and more stringent declaration than we exact from the Roman Catholics. And yet, those words which are, as I say, totally unnecessary, which place a guard where it is not required, are those very words which have been found by some noble Lords to oppose difficulties which they think insurmountable, in the way of their sitting as Peers of Parliament, and giving advice as such to the Crown upon the grave and solemn affairs of the nation. I say. Sir, that this would be a reason, even if there should be only one person who had such a doubt, sufficient to justify us in removing that which is obviously an unnecessary security. I come next to the third oath, the oath of abjuration, which, after acknowledging the Queen as the lawful and rightful Sovereign of these realms, goes on to say—

"And I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I do believe, in my conscience, that not any of the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James the Second, and, since his decease, pretended to be, and took upon himself the style and title of King of England, by the name of James the Third, or of Scotland, by the name of James the Eighth, or the style and title of King of Great Britain, hath any right or title whatsoever to the Crown of this realm, or any other the dominions thereunto belonging; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to any of them. And I do swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and her will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against her person, crown, or dignity. And I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, and her successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against her person, crown, or dignity. And I do faithfully promise, to the utmost of my power, to support, maintain, and defend the succession of the Crown against the descendants of the said James, and against all other persons whatsoever; which succession, by an Act, intituled 'An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and bettor securing the rights and liberties of the subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever."

Such is the solemn declaration which every Member makes on entering this or the other House of Parliament. But now, in considering this part of the subject, let us see how that oath arose. When the House of Hanover came to this country, and George I. was king of these realms, there was a prince professing to derive his title from King James II. calling himself King James III., and claiming the crown of this realm as a right. There was also existing at that time a party, a very considerable party, who regarded his claim as superior to that of the king upon the throne: and Parliament, therefore, thought it necessary that every person who took his seat in Parliament should take the oath of allegiance, and should, at the same time, disclaim and abjure the title of the person pretending to be the king of these realms. In the course of time James III., as he called himself, died, and the claim descended to his sons. Parliament then, in the year 1766, declared that his death rendered necessary the alteration of the terms in which the oath of abjuration should be taken, and instead of saying that they abjured the title of James III., they gave the words at present in use, abjuring the title of the descendants of the person pretending to be James III. But that was no doubt as rational a proceeding as could well be. In the first place there was a pretender claiming the throne, and there was a great party ready, and even appearing in arms, in the first year of the reign of King George I. Parliament then in the first instance called upon every man as a matter of security to abjure the title of James III., and then, when he died, they again called upon every person to abjure the title of his descendants. But now, since the year 1807, there have been descendants of the person calling himself James III. Cardinal York, I think, died in that year, and from that time there has not been the least necessity for that abjuration. Therefore, by the solemn oath which we take, abjuring the title of the descendants of a person who has not left any descendants, the title of a family which does not now exist, we are guilty of something very like a mockery; and being now brought under the notice of this House, I think the practice will not be any longer continued. Everybody, of course, knows that if there is any pretence to a title, it must he in the descendants of Charles I. and not of James II.; but, in fact, the title of the Queen is so perfectly well established, that I think it is only necessary to declare our adherence to the settlement of the Crown by the Act which settles it in the present family, and that it is not necessary to abjure the title of any foreign prince. The oath of abjuration ends with these words:—

"And I do make this recognition, acknowledgement, abjuration, renunciation, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God."

Now, Sir, with respect to these words, I argued last year that they were intended as a sanction, and that they ought not to be continued to the exclusion of persons of the Jewish religion who had been elected by the suffrages of any body of constituents. I do not wish at this time to go again at length into that argument. I own it appears to me, after all the debates we had last Session upon the subject, that all the objections resolved themselves into this—that the Jewish subjects of Her Majesty were of a different opinion in matters of religion and conscience from the Roman Catholics and Protestants who might be Members of this House, and therefore that they ought to be excluded. Upon this subject I must again maintain that you had no right to exclude any subject of this realm duly elected, except on the ground that some of their doctrines or opinions were such as to render them unfit to be Members of this House, and incompetent to perform its duties. For instance, with regard to the Roman Catholics it was at one time alleged—I will not stop now to inquire whether truly or falsely—that they were persons with a divided allegiance—that they owed allegiance to the Pope, which made their allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms a wholly imperfect allegiance; that they never would be satisfied with paying obedience to a Protestant Sovereign or a Protestant Government; but that they would be constantly attempting to overturn it, and to introduce the Roman Catholic religion and supremacy into this House. I say I will not enter into that allegation now, but I will give my opinion that if it were proved, it would form a good and sufficient reason for excluding Roman Catholics from this House. So again with regard to the exclusion of Protestant Dissenters, not from this House, but from office; it was alleged that they would use the powers of office for the destruction of the Established Church—that there would be no security for the Establishment—and that they would never cease their endeavours to subvert and destroy it. I say that allegation was of considerable weight when the question under discussion was, whether Dissenters should be admitted to office; but as regards the Jews no man can venture to say that there is anything in their opinions which is hostile to the constitution of this country, or that they would use any power which they possess for the purpose of injuring or destroying our constitution, or still less our monarchy. Well, Sir, if that is so, this comes to be a case of pure unmitigated persecution—the denial of privileges is persecution—a persecution similar in nature to that violent one which led to the faggot and the axe; and it bears this odious feature, that the persons whom you do exclude have no means of enforcing their rights. Exclude the Roman Catholics—attempt to-morrow to do it—and you have, immediately, five or six millions of people in a state of bitter and exasperated discontent. Exclude the Protestant Dissenters, and you have some three millions of people in the United Kingdom who are at once estranged from your constitution and your laws; but, exclude the Jews, and you know perfectly well that you are safe in that exclusion, and that you may enjoy all the triumph and all the pleasure of your persecution, without exposing yourselves to any danger from their discontent. I say, therefore. Sir, that this exclusion, after the admission of Roman Catholics and of Protestant Dissenters, against whom there were plausible, though by no means sufficient, reasons, is peculiarly odious and unjust. Sir, I will now state what it is that I propose to do with the view of amending those laws. I have already stated, with regard to the Roman Catholics, that this matter having been so recently settled, and there being no sufficient reason for the disturbance of that settlement, I propose no alteration whatever. With regard to the other subjects of Her Majesty, I propose that there should be a general oath taken, and I have taken nearly all the words of it from the very able report of the Com-mission which was appointed by Lord Lyndhurst, and the report of which appeared in 1845. That report does not touch upon the question as to previous declaration respecting oaths taken by Members of Parliament. But the oath there proposed is as nearly as possible that which I now propose for the consideration of the House. It is as follows:—

"I, A. B., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will maintain the succession of the Crown as established by an Act intituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subjects;' and that I do not believe that the Pope of Home, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, State, or potentate, hath+, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this realm; and that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm as established by the laws; and I do make this recognition, declaration, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God."

I propose that to be generally the oath to be taken by Members of Parliament; and I propose, in conformity with the same Acts, that when that shall be administered to a person professing the Jewish religion, the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian" shall be omitted. Now, Sir, it might be a question whether the words "on the true faith of a Christian," should be contained in any of the oaths or not. I own, with regard to any security to be obtained from them, I cannot think that a barrier which did not prove of any effect against the admission of a Bolingbroke, a Gibbon, and a Wilkes, can be looked upon as any very efficient barrier. But I am aware that advantage will be taken of their omission, in order to say that an attempt was made to admit infidels and unbelievers into this House, and that such would be the effect of this measure. I therefore continue these words in the oath. I leave the Roman Catholics exactly on the footing they are at present. I propose that other subjects of Her Majesty should take the oath which I have read; and I propose further, that when any person professing the Jewish religion shall approach the table and ask to take this oath, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" shall be omitted by him. By these means, Sir, I think that the measure of religious liberty will be made complete. All persons being subjects of Her Majesty, and inhabitants of these realms, will have the power of being elected Members of this House, and of taking their seats as the representatives of the people, by whom they are returned. The people will thereby acquire that which they ought to have—the full right of choosing any person whom it may be their will to choose, otherwise properly qualified for a seat in this House. There will be no longer the stain upon us of religious exclusion and intolerance. The saying of King William III., who had learnt the maxims of religious liberty in his native country that "conscience is God's province," will be carried into effect by the oaths to be taken by means of this House. We shall no longer bear the reproach of excluding any persons on account of their religious faith from the privilege of being Members of Parliament. We shall complete that great edifice which of late years it has been the boast of statesmen to endeavour to erect. We may be told, indeed, that there is danger in throwing open our doors so wide. My belief, on the contrary, is that whether you examine the precepts of Christianity or the maxims of the constitution, it is your duty, as it is your policy, to throw open those doors as widely as possible, to place no religious bar of exclusion against any class of persons professing any particular religious persuasions. And in the belief that what I propose to you will clear away ambiguities, remove those parts of the oaths which are unnecessary, and make your whole system defensible and justifiable in the eyes of this country and of the world, I now ask this House to resolve itself into a Committee to consider the oaths to be taken by the Members of the two Houses of Parliament.

said, he was not in the least degree insensible to the importance of the question which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had brought under the consideration of the House. The alteration of those statutes by which they had been accustomed hitherto to secure the due execution of their duty by those who were placed in a legislative capacity, could never be other than a matter of serious consideration. With regard to the oath of abjuration, it was certainly open to consideration, and it was not his intention to resist the noble Lord's going into Committee for the purpose of presenting to the House the measure by which he actually proposed to alter or abrogate it; but in giving his consent to this first stage of the measure, he must enter his protest against being supposed to adopt the principles upon which the noble Lord recommended it. He did not intend to discuss the oath of supremacy at that moment; but he presumed that when that oath was under consideration in 1829, good reasons were urged why it should be retained in its then form; and though he did not mean to say that the decision then come to precluded the House from altering it now, yet he must declare that the principle on which the noble Lord proposed to alter it was not one which he was prepared to sanction. The noble Lord said, that if any man had a doubt as to the meaning of that oath, that doubt on the part of an individual would be sufficient to induce him to give it up. He (Mr. Goulburn) could not think that doubts of that limited description could be any justification for the alteration of that oath. The more important part of the noble Lord's speech was that which related to the effect that the proposed alteration would have upon the admission of Jews to Parliament. He wished the noble Lord distinctly to understand that, though not now disposed to oppose the introduction of the measure, he had hi no degree departed from the opinions which he expressed last Session as to the inexpediency of the admission which the noble Lord proposed. He felt then, as now, that the admission of Jews would be derogatory to the character of Parliament, would diminish the salutary authority which it ought to possess over the people of this country—would be productive of serious consequences on the religion of the people at home—and would operate materially against the extension of religion abroad. And whilst he retained that opinion, he could not admit that the individual respectability of the persons whom it was proposed to introduce, formed any just grounds for breaking through an important principle. The noble Lord told us, indeed, to-night in his speech, that the exclusion of any class of persons from Parliament, was in itself persecution; that the denial of these privileges was persecution; and that in the case of the Jews we indulged a pleasure of persecution, because we had no fears with respect to the power of the persons persecuted; but he was surprised when the noble Lord told us that the exclusion of any class, by means of an oath, was persecution, that the noble Lord did not read the very oath which he himself proposed to be taken by Members of this House. The noble Lord retained in that oath the words "the true faith of a Christian;" he did not limit the taking of that oath to the Christian subjects of Her Majesty, but he imposed on every other subject of Her Majesty not being a Jew, be he a Mahometan, or any profession not Christian, the very restriction which he himself said, in the case of the Jew, was absolute persecution; and in proportion as the number of those who might be candidates for Parliament might be diminished, the noble Lord introduced this measure of persecution, and himself indulged the pleasure of persecution. In short, religious liberty appeared to be granted solely to the Jews, while it was denied to all others. As he said before, he did not intend, until the measure was fully before the House, to go into an extended argument; he was only anxious in the outset to deny the persecuting spirit which the noble Lord imputed to those who resisted his Bill, and would take the noble Lord's own measure as a justification for his denial: when the noble Lord talked of religious liberty being complete, how would be answer the statement he had just made to the House? Religious liberty was to be confined solely to the Jew; it was to be denied to every other man, how different soever his opinions might be from those of the Christian community. He confessed he was somewhat surprised that the noble Lord should have thought it necessary, upon his view of the subject, to retain the two oaths which he now proposed for different classes of Members of this House. But he should not pursue the subject. As far as he was individually concerned, he would rather see the measure of the noble Lord, that he might fully understand the bearing of these new oaths, than enter into a discussion on the present occasion; and as the only object he had in view was to enter his protest against some of the doctrines which the noble Lord had laid down, and to state, his determined adherence to the principles which he advocated when the Bill for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities was before the House last Session, he would not, by any lengthened observations, interfere with the House going into Committee, and having before them the terms of the oath, and the regulations under which it was to be administered, which, after all, was the essence of the measure. He hoped the House would carefully consider the effect of the measure which the noble Lord proposed; that if they agreed with him that the introduction of the Jews into this Legislature would be derogatory to that assembly and destructive of its influence, that they would carefully consider the question how far the alteration of the oath, and the terms of it, might be such as to diminish the sense of the obligation. With this view he reserved what he had to say until the measure was brought before the House, and until they had an opportunity of considering it.

was inclined to think that those hon. Members who thought last year that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for the admission of Jews ought not to be passed, would also now be of opinion that the noble Lord should not proceed with this measure. He was prepared, in this first stage of the Bill, to offer every opposition to the noble Lord, and even to divide the House on this first question, if it were the pleasure of any hon. Members to go into the lobby with him. He would not conceal from himself this truth that there would have been no movement whatever in the matter had not the noble Lord been defeated in another place last year in the Bill which he intro- duced and carried in this House for the admission of the Jews; and, therefore, he said that if this measure were, as he believed it to be, for the admission of Jews into this House, he was disposed to offer his opposition to it in the very first stage. He must confess that, to his ears, the proposal of the noble Lord with regard to the admission of Jews into this House was exceedingly oftensive. He meant nothing personal to the noble Lord; but he did think that the way in which he proposed to admit Jews into the House, and the terms he had mentioned to the House, were exceedingly oftensive to Christians. What did the noble Lord propose to do? He proposed that the Jew should be excused from making use of those words which other Members were to make use of, "upon the true faith of a Christian," and yet the Jew was to be admitted into this House because he could repeat these words, "So help me God." It seemed to be by a trick, by a subterfuge, that the, Jew was to be admitted into this House—that the Jew was to be accommodated at the expense of Him whom Christians venerated. When a Jew used the words, "So help me God," he had no respect to Him whom Christians adored and revered as their God and Saviour. He must say that the proposal was an exceedingly offensive one, from which he shrunk, and one which he trusted would never receive the sanction of Parliament. This was confessedly a religious Parliament. The noble Lord said there would be some risk and danger if you refused your Roman Catholic subjects admission to that House, because there might be seven or eight millions of them. The noble Lord said there might be also some danger if you refused to Dissenting subjects admission; but he said, "you might safely admit Jews, because they were so few." He (Mr. Plumptre), could not help looking at the word "safely," not merely with reference to the safety of the State, but he said that if they took any step by which they might forfeit the favour of Him who was "the Prince of the kings of the earth," "by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice;" if they took a step to provoke His displeasure, they were taking a stop which they could take with anything but safety to the best interests of the country. If any other Member was disposed to view the matter as he viewed it, and divide the House on the first stage of the Bill, he should be opposed to conceding to the noble Lord even the first step of so dangerous a measure.

said, he retained the opinions he had formerly expressed on this subject, which, so far from being changed, had gained greater strength by the interval since it was last discussed. Although this measure made a pretence of treating on oaths in general, it was obviously neither more nor less than the old question. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had just stated that the exclusion of Jews from Parliament was a hateful and odious policy; but what a discovery was that for the noble Lord to make for the first time in the year 1848, when his Colleague was Baron Rothschild! The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had said, that the admission of Jews would complete the edifice of civil and religious liberty; but the very oath by which he proposed to accomplish this wonderful temple of freedom was itself a sentence of exclusion against others of Her Majesty's unchristian subjects, who unfortunately did not happen to have secured the suffrages of the citizens of London. He rose more particularly on the present occasion, because he felt bound to enter his protest against this measure at every stage; and he would take another opportunity in the course of the discussion of expressing his opinion upon it. But as the circumstances under which the measure was brought forward were most important, he would ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who had only just told them the nature of the measure, not to urge the House to resolve itself itself into a Committee to take the measure into consideration within half an hour of its being introduced into the House. He thought it was due to the minority that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should give them an opportunity of having one night to consider whether they would make such an alteration in the oaths as would lead to the admission of Jews into that House. He asked the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for that indulgence, though he must frankly tell him that he could not give him any assistance in carrying this measure, neither would be give to it any vexatious opposition; but he would give it every opposition in his power that was not vexatious. He asked the noble Lord to give them one night to consider this resolution, which he believed was not yet six hours old—which the noble Lord had not himself determined on when he rose from his bed that morning. It appeared that the speech of the noble Lord was 'a speech intended to be spoken' in reference to a far more comprehensive scheme than that now hastily presented to the House. It was indeed a most lame and impotent conclusion to the grandiloquent expressions of the noble Lord. Had the noble Lord, in curtailing his measure of its full dimensions, unhappily forgotten to curtail his peroration? The noble Lord had declared that this was a measure intended to relieve all classes of Her Majesty's subjects from religious disabilities; but it resolved itself into one for the relief only of the Jews; for the noble Lord said, that the parties affected by the present oath were so few that they could not resent the injuries inflicted upon them. Yet, notwithstanding those words, it was declared to be a measure for relieving all religious disabilities. He would not detain the House; but the noble Lord had, as he (Mr. Law) thought, indiscreetly (for he could not suppose that he would wilfully) told those who supported the present oaths, that they were the promoters of "a hateful and odious persecution." He did not think the noble Lord ought to have applied those terms to those by whom he (Mr. Law) was surrounded; and he therefore implored the noble Lord to give them time to consider the measure, and state the solemn reasons which induced them to dissent from it. When the noble Lord said ad captandum that he proposed to do away with one portion of the oath, because it had ceased to be of any use for forty or forty-two years, and that, therefore, they ought to go into Committee, he thought that the noble Lord was hardly dealing fairly with the House, its obvious intent only being to admit the Jews. He was sure the noble Lord, whose ability could not be doubted, had not fully considered and matured his measure before introducing it to the House. He (Mr. Law) did not wish to divide the House upon that occasion; but if his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), who had so solemnly entered his protest against the Bill, and his friends around him, thought it necessary to do so, he was not prepared to say he would not join them. He again asked the noble Lord—who had kept his secret so long and so closely that nobody could possibly guess how comprehensive or how limited it would be—at least to give him, and those who thought with him, one night to consider its import.

did not, of course, intend to vote against the measure of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), but he could not help expressing his regret that the noble Lord had not considered the subject of oaths on a larger scale, and introduced a measure by which all those taken by Members of that House could have been reduced to one form. The noble Lord had noticed two or three parts of the oaths taken by Protestants, in which it was stated that the Pope had no spiritual authority in this kingdom; and he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would not attempt to add one word to his lucid explanation of the meaning of that oath. There were words in the Roman Catholic oath which had been made the subject of annoyance and insult to the members of that persuasion. He did not value those insults himself, and if those charges were again made in that House of the Roman Catholics tampering with their oaths, they, as honest, conscientious men, would know how to repel them as they had done before. But what he wanted was that the oath should be so altered as to do away with the war of words. In a few days that important subject was to be brought under consideration relative to which the difference existed as to their oath; and the Roman Catholic Members could not submit to the charge of violating their oaths with regard to the Established Church. In his opinion the noble Lord ought to make one general oath for all Members, though he should not object to the introduction of the present measure. He trusted that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman who had assisted in drawing up the Roman Catholic oath, would be in their places when these bickerings were likely to occur, and would state what interpretation they put on the words of the Roman Catholic oath; and if their interpretation savoured of the charge of violating the oath, which had been attempted to be made against the Roman Catholics, he would acquiesce in their decision, and would resign his seat as a Member of that House.

could assure the House and the hon. Member who had just sat down, that he would not take part in the miserable bickerings to which he had alluded. He (Mr. Bankes) had expected that the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) would have risen and given the House his opinion on this measure. He had the more expected it, because his colleague, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis), who was generally to be found in his place on all occasions when any measure affecting the Church was likely to be brought forward, was that evening absent on the bed of sickness. If they, speaking with the authority which belonged to them, had agreed in any respect in the proposition now submitted by the noble Lord, he should have been ready, on this the first occasion of the introduction of the measure, to have bowed to their authority; and although it might have been contrary to his own opinions, on any point involving a question of principle, to admit even the first introduction of a measure to the House, if he had had the high authority of the Members of the two Universities that he should make that acquiescence, he would not have contravened their wishes. He was, however, bound to say, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Plumptre), to whom he always listened with the greatest attention on all matters affecting the Church, that if he divided the House upon the question, and be was only the second, he would divide with him. It was true that the noble Lord had not put his measure on this subject so prominently forward as he did last year; he had managed to involve it with political considerations of very inferior importance, as he (Mr. Bankes) thought very unnecessarily, as the noble Lord must know that the House would be at all times ready to strike out from the proceedings of Parliament anything not necessary to be retained, or which might appear in its nature unsuitable to solemn occasions. In putting the measure before the House, he would not say the noble Lord had done it unworthily, but he would say that it was hardly worthy of the noble Lord's character—it was hardly worthy of the noble Lord's standing in that House—to overlay the question with other matter only for the sake of argument. He did not object to the noble Lord's historical disquisition with regard to the accession to the Throne. It was true that there was now no Pretender who could claim a right of accession to the Throne, prior to Her present Majesty, as descending from James III.; and of those who might claim as descending from James I., there was only to be found as a claimant from an elder stock, a monarch who, from the course he had pursued in his own kingdom, would no doubt be happy to find a vacant throne anywhere. There was, however, no vacant throne for him in this kingdom, nor was there any reason to fear that there would be a vacancy either for the descendants of James III. or of James I. He said the noble Lord had not acted fairly by the House in calling on it to go into Committee on matters which required no such talents as those of the noble Lord to cover them with ridicule, and mix them up with matters which were felt by a large number of Members upon that side of the House, and a considerable number on the other side, to be of an important nature as regarded the religion of the country. Not only must he (Mr. Bankes) concur with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, when he said that the nature of the proposition to be brought forward had not been understood; but he felt that the House was not so full as it would have been if it had been known what the noble Lord really intended to bring forward; and therefore it was not fair for the noble Lord to ask them without further time for communication with Members now absent from the House, to go into Committee to consider the oath, as now proposed. As far as he (Mr. Bankes) was able to judge of it, the oath, as it was proposed, gave ample security on many points; but he felt that it did not give security on the point which many of his friends considered to be of the first importance—the Established Church. He did find that the security of the Throne was provided for; which perhaps required no oath. He felt assured that the Occupant of the Throne was so enshrined in the hearts of the people as not to require the protection of an oath for the security of the Throne. He also found that the settlement of property was duly provided for; but he believed the noble Lord had omitted those important words in reference to the Church:—

"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I will never exercise any privilege, to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government."

And he would ask, why were those words omitted from the oath? [Lord J. RUSSELL: They are not in the present.] The noble Lord said, they were not in at present. Did he mean that they were to be introduced? [Lord J. RUSSELL: The words are not in the present oath.] The noble Lord said, the words were not in the present oath; but it must be recollected, when that oath was framed none but members of the Established Church were allowed to be Members of that House. It was unnecessary when all the parties who had to take it were members of the Established Church; but though it was unnecessary in the original oaths, when they framed the oath for the admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament, it was thought necessary that they should be called upon to swear that they would not disturb the Church as by law established. Now, when they were going to admit—if admit they did—those into the House who not only did not profess the doctrines of the Established Church, but professed doctrines altogether adverse to the Christian faith—professed to disbelieve them—professed—it was always under painful and peculiar circumstances that hon. Members had to address the House when they were speaking on points of faith in an assembly so constituted as this is now constituted, most unwilling to give offence, they could hardly speak freely what they felt. He considered it was the duty of any hon. Member, in proposing to carry a measure for altering the oath to be taken in that House, or affording an opportunity for the introduction of parties of another creed, to take care that those who entered the House, if they could not revere, should at least be restrained from destroying, from disturbing, and even from dishonouring the Church. They were now called upon to admit into the House parties who were not only hostile to the Church, but were not even bound to treat it with respect or common decency. He thought it was their duty in case this measure should pass, which would however receive his constant opposition, to introduce an assurance binding, conscientiously, honourably, and honestly, if not religiously, in favour of the Established Church. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Plumptre) was determined to divide the House, he (Mr. Bankes) would readily divide with him, though he was aware that the numbers present were not numerous, and he felt they would be dividing under some disadvantages.

Sir, after the pointed allusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), I shall not shrink from stating my opinion upon this subject; and as far as regards the main purpose of the noble Lord, I feel bound to say, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, that my opinions, like his, have undergone no change, unless it is that they have been confirmed by reflection during the interval since the last discussion of this subject. I am, therefore, deliberately convinced that the civil and political claims of the Jew to the discharge of civil and political duties ought not, in justice, to be barred, and cannot beneficially be barred, because of the difference between his religion and ours. With reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent, I say, with all due respect, and with the most sincere and cordial respect for him, that, with my views of the propriety of admitting Jews to the Legislature, I think that, in doing so, we do not abandon our duty to the Almighty; but we are acting in strict fulfilment of our duty by giving effect to the principles of natural justice. I think, however, that though the main purpose of the noble Lord, may have that view, yet I put it to the House whether there are not sufficient grounds for going into Committee independent of that main purpose? There are various secondary questions which the noble Lord has introduced to us in respect to the alteration of the oaths taken by ourselves, which, though of far inferior importance compared with the constitutional question raised by the admission of Jews into Parliament, yet are not altogether undeserving of attention and consideration on the part of this House. The alteration which the noble Lord proposes is an improvement, and that improvement is of weight sufficient to justify even those who are most opposed to the admission of the Jews to give their assent to the proposal of the noble Lord to go into Committee. We must all feel that oaths, when they are taken in public by large masses of men, and under associations not very favourable to solemn and religious feelings, have a tendency to degenerate into formalism; and especially is that tendency aggravated by oaths being prolonged beyond the necessity of the case, and by introducing irrelevant matter; while by expunging irrelevant matter, and excluding words which have no rational meaning, we pursue an object about which there can be no difference, and the importance of which is by no means insignificant. It is said, on the highest authority, that our words should be few on all those solemn acts which have peculiar reference to the Deity. I cannot say that our present oaths have no words contained in them apart from the purpose in view. I cannot say that they do not admit of abbreviation, or that they bring before the mind propositions in that lucid, distinct, and intelligible form, with regard to which all oaths having a peculiarly solemn end in view ought to be framed. I, therefore, venture to express a hope, as the purpose of the noble Lord, apart from the admission of the Jews into the Legislature, is a sufficient plea for going into Committee: I put it to hon. Gentlemen that they will be in no respect committed by their assent being given to this proposition of the noble Lord, and allowing the House to go into Committee for the general purpose. With respect to the plan of the noble Lord, I will not now enter into any detailed argument; but I cannot avoid expressing my satisfaction that it differs, in what I think an important position, from a scheme that was announced in the public journals some few weeks ago. I frankly own that I am glad that the noble Lord has retained the words "on the true faith of a Christion," in respect to all Christian Members of this House, considering the solemn duties which we are called upon to perform. I think it is well that we should approach the performance of those duties with something like a feeling of that solemnity; and though I do not deny the integrity of an oath which we might take in common with the Jews, yet I think the noble Lord has acted wisely in declining to reduce that high standard which we have fixed for ourselves. But, Sir, I would venture to make one suggestion to the noble Lord with respect to the oath which he means to propose, and the suggestion I shall make is in the sense of the alteration that he is about to advise. The noble Lord proposes, as I understand, to exclude the words forming the latter clauses of the oath of supremacy, by which Protestants swear that no foreign prince, prolate, person, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority within these realms. But he proposes to substitute a declaration to be taken by Roman Catholics and by Protestants and Jews, that no foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, cither directly or indirectly, within these realms. Now, I submit to the noble Lord, that he might improve his proposal by leaving those words out altogether. For what use is it that gentlemen who are not Roman Catholics should be called upon to abjure the temporal power of the Pope within these realms? You may find Roman Catholics—there may be some gentlemen professing that religion—at least it is a conceivable case, that there might be Roman Catholics, who think that the Pope indirectly might be entitled to some temporal jurisdiction within these realms; but with Protestants, or any not Roman Catholics, such cannot possibly be the case. Well, then, if that be so, the principle upon which the noble Lord has proceeded, of excluding all irrelevant matter from the oath, ought to carry him as far as the point I now submit to his consideration; and he ought not to call upon any hon. Gentleman, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jew, to abjure their belief in a temporal power that it is morally impossible they could entertain. The noble Lord tells us that it has been introduced in the nature of a test, and not with a view of giving greater solemnity to the discharge of our duties, or of laying down a higher standard of duty. But the object originally in view was the exclusion of certain parties. Now, it can exclude no Protestant and no Jew; but it does put in their mouths, at a moment when no irrelevant word should be used, words that are neither necessary nor useful for any purpose whatsoever. I thought it necessary, Sir, to make this suggestion at this stage of the proceeding. The noble Lord shall have my support in every stage of this measure. I fear I cannot undertake to speak on the part of my hon. and respected Colleague; but I hope hon. Gentlemen will not debar the noble Lord from going into Committee, and proposing, in the first instance, alterations in certain points of our oaths, in which they are certainly capable of improvement.

, having felt no doubt as to the nature of the oath taken by him at the table, and not having felt any of that embarrassment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford seemed to think might have confused the understanding of sonic Protestant Members of the House while taking that oath, but having taken it willingly, wittingly, und with a full intention of abiding by it, entertained the greatest objection to the proposal of the noble Lord. What were the characteristics of that proposition? The noble Lord had clubbed together every objection entertained by every small section against this oath, and had framed his proposed oath in such a manner as to gain a transitory applause from these objectors. The noble Lord proposed to alter the oath by remov- ing the declaration made by Protestants, that they do not acknowledge any spiritual authority of the Pope in this country, for the purpose of conciliating the Roman Catholics. He had not been so fortunate as to go the full length proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick—since he had not totally swept away the provisions of the oath which guarded the Church of England from the attacks contemplated by the hon. Member—he had not gone far enough to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, because he had retained in that oath a declaration against the temporal authority of the Pope. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) must say that they had seen much in the present Session to make it necessary to take a test of opinion on that subject; and if any thing could make him understand the support given to the measure—if any thing could elucidate his understanding of that support—it was the proposition made by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that they should cease to deny the right of the Pope to exercise both spiritual and temporal authority in this realm. This indeed threw a curious light upon the support given to this measure by the right hon. Gentleman. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) also wished to make a proposal to the noble Lord. He thought the terms of the Motion had been altered since the noble Lord spoke, and he asked the noble Lord to consent to the adjournment of the House, in order that they might have the advantage of knowing how the oath and the resolution were intended to stand. He thought the noble Lord ought to consent to this suggestion, in order that they might know what they were debating about. He did not wish, on the present occasion, to enter more fully into the subject; but he must say that he felt strongly with the hon. Member for East Kent, that retaining the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in the oath to be taken by Protestants, and allowing those words to be omitted by others, did seem to bear the appearance of a mockery; and he would say that if they did strike them out for any, they ought to strike them out for all, for they had no right to impose them if they did not impose them upon all. There was no ground for not trusting the honour of Protestants as much as the honour of Jews. If the House of Commons was to cease to be a Christian assembly, let the avowal be made at once. The oaths taken by Protestant and Christian Members, would be binding without those words. They did not need the repetition of that test to secure the observance of the condition of those oaths; but they did prize them highly as characterising that House the Christian representative assembly of a Christian country, and would defend them to the last. They did not think the name cited, when they pledged themselves on their true faith as Christians, a matter of indifference. Was not the whole faith of the Christian centered in a name? What did their hopes rest upon but a name? They did trust, therefore, that that name would not be removed from the profession of the State, at least they would do their best to defend it. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the House do now adjourn.

said, that the noble Lord had grounded his introduction of the measure upon the desire to do natural justice to the Jew; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had gone further, and it seemed that in his view, as well as in his own (Mr. Drummond's), they were required to do natural justice to the Jew by returning to natural religion. There appeared to him to be considerable discrepancy between the speech of the noble Lord, and the conclusion to which he had come; and that gave him some doubts as to the course which ought to be followed upon that occasion. He believed, with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there was much in the oaths taken by Members that would be better left out; but, as it appeared to him, the present question was nothing more than the old Jew Bill again. Whatever might be the overture, the prelude by which the piece was introduced was just a simple rechauffée of the old fish. But if the noble Lord were really desirous of going into Committee of the House, he (Mr. Drummond) thought it would be a matter of very great convenience not to divide upon the question.

(who was called upon by Mr. Bankes and several hon. Gentlemen near him not to press the question of adjournment) asked the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to read the amended oath, as he intended to propose it, and the resolution as it stood.

The Resolution which I shall propose on going into Committee is—

"That it is expedient to alter the oaths re- quired to be taken by the subjects of Her Majesty not professing the Roman Catholic Religion, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Parliament, and to make provision in respect of the said oaths for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish Religion."

Upon that Resolution I shall be enabled to bring in a Bill; and the oath which I intend to propose is that which I read in an early part of the debate. There will be a provision for striking out the words "on the true faith of a Christian," when the party to whom the oath so tendered is a member of the Jewish persuasion.

suggested to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) the propriety of asking the House merely to go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of laying his Resolution on the table of the House, and taking the discussion thereupon on some future day.

If I should adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), I should not have an opportunity-of laying the proposed oath before the House. In a Committee pro formâ, I should only have an opportunity of proposing, in general words, that it is expedient to alter the words of the oath, and make provision for persons professing the Jewish religion. My object, certainly, would not be gained by merely going into Committee pro formâ.; I wish at once to lay the whole measure before the House.

said, the House had now before it, according to the statement of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), two distinct propositions—one, that a formal alteration should be made in the oath; the other, that a substantial alteration should be made in the oath, which alteration involved a fundamental principle. Now, he (Mr. Walpole), for one, felt that if the vote they were going to give was to be considered an admission of that principle, they ought not to be called upon to make such admission; and although he came down with the intention of acquiescing in any general proposition for the purpose of considering the nature of the oaths taken by Members, he felt, after the discussion which had taken place, not only the greatest unwillingness, but, he might almost say, the moral impossibility of consenting to such a course. The House would observe that the noble Lord pro-posed the alteration in the oath upon three grounds—that some parts are superfluous, that some parts are unnecessary, and that other parts are unduly restrictive. Now, he (Mr. Walpole) quite concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that some parts of the oath were superfluous, some were unnecessary, and in other respects it was inappropriate to the time in which we live, because they had survived the circumstances which originally gave rise to them. Let him add one word as to the substantial part of the proposition. He would not enter into the general question now. But he thought when the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) put it on the ground of natural justice, he would have done well to consider whether there was not still, and whether there had not been always, a broad distinction between political rights and political duties. And before the discussion should again come on, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pause and reflect, whether the rights which the people of this country possessed, both to the protection of the law and the support of the law, he they Jews or he they Christians, necessarily gave them those political privileges which also involved political duties—since those duties, according to the principles established in the constitution, could only be performed in a Christian State by those who were bound by a Christian obligation. He would only trouble the House with one other remark. He had hoped that the noble Lord would not have thought it necessary to renew this discussion—to reopen a question which had been fully discussed and deliberately settled only nine months ago; and that too in the very same Parliament as that which it was now submitted to again. He (Mr. Walpole) felt this the more strongly, because he had always understood that it was a wise policy on the part of the Government not to hazard upon slight grounds a collision or disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament. He had also understood and felt this more strongly than anything else—that it was a still wiser policy on the part of the Government not to offend or in any way do violence to the religious convictions of the great mass of the people. Both these considerations were, in his humble judgment, most unhappily disregarded on the present occasion; for no one could doubt, that if the noble Lord were to carry his resolution, he would, at all events, run the risk of that disagreement which was so much to be deprecated; and no one could doubt, moreover, if he had inquired into this subject during the recess, that it would give a painful shock to the feelings and opinions of a great many people—he did not mean the ignorant and unintelligent, but some of the best and ablest men, who regarded this question in no other light than as a national violation of our Christian principles. [The O'GORMAN MAHON: Hear, hear! and a laugh.] Notwithstanding the laugh of the hon. Member for Ennis, he would say that he (Mr. Walpole) had in his mind's eye, when using that phrase some of our best and ablest men, whose names he could quote if desired to do so; and if the hon. Gentleman had referred to their works on both sides of the question, as he had done, he would have seen that some of these good and able men did really regard it—and now he would use a still stronger phrase—as a national renunciation of our Christian character. He (Mr. Walpole) owned that he had been carried away further than he intended; but he trusted that the House would be of opinion that there was nothing in the observations which he had ventured to offer that called for a laugh. This he must add, that if the religions convictions of many persons in this country were not to be regarded, and the laugh he had heard when alluding to the subject were again repeated, then instead of this being, as it was called, an unmitigated case of persecution against the Jews, his opinion was that the persons who had most need to be apprehensive of persecution were those who belonged to the Church of England.

I had hoped that, as the House after repeated discussion, agreed last year to that which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) states to be the only point upon which a difference could arise this year—namely, the removal of the Jewish disabilities—I should have been allowed to introduce the Bill, and that the discussion would have been reserved for some future stage of the Bill. All I can do at present is, to propose that the House should go into Committee. If the House is pleased to go into Committee, I should then propose this resolution, and put it into the hands of the Chairman. H' the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) or any other Member of this House might think it necessary to raise a discussion upon that resolution, and to make that the question upon which they are disposed to resist the proposition that I shall make, I should then certainly not propose to go further into that discussion on the present occasion. Sir, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has, however, not confined himself to the simple question of whether or not the House should resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of having the resolution submitted to them; he has expressed his surprise that I should stir this question after it had been mooted, and, as he says, settled nine months ago. Sir, that is not the way in which I have understood the constitution of this country. I had thought that if, for example, the question for taking away some of the Roman Catholic disabilities had been passed by this House, and rejected by the other House of Parliament, yet that no Member of the House of Commons would consider himself bound by that decision—he would not consider the vote of the House of Lords irrevocable and irreversible—one which it was impossible for the House to rescind. We know that the House of Lords at length passed the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, although previously rejected. I myself took part in a measure of the greatest importance—namely, the Reform Bill; it was carried by large majorities in this House, but when it arrived in the House of Lords it was rejected. Why, if there is any truth in the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Walpole's) doctrine, we ought then to have sat down contented—that the question of reform was settled—that it was settled that there should be no reform of Parliament, and we should not have ventured during the Administration of Earl Grey again to disturb the question. Sir, I say again, that with respect to that question, and with respect to general questions, though they have been once rejected by the House of Lords, yet, with all due deference to the House of Lords, we may again ask them to reconsider a question; and they, in the full exorcise of their undoubted right, may reconsider that question, and they may give their affirmative or negative to such question. But that the decision of the House of Lords once made should be binding for ever on this House, and that we never should bring forward such a question again, although it may seem to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) a correct mode of proceeding, is one to which I can never submit, and one which I conceive would reverse the whole practice of the House. Having said thus much in justification of the course I have pursued, I can only say that I am sorry if any term I may have used should have been offensive to any hon. Gentleman. I used them as agreeing with my own notions of the policy that ought to be pursued, and not with the intention of applying to hon. Gentlemen the character of "persecutors," and certainly not with the intention of giving offence to any hon. Gentleman. I have only now to add, that I shall resist the Motion for adjournment, and to express my wish that the Motion for going into Committee may be adopted.

intimated that he would withdraw his Motion for adjournment.

in the chair; Motion made and Question proposed—

"That it is expedient to alter the oaths required to be taken by the subjects of Her Majesty not professing the Roman Catholic religion as qualifications for sitting and voting in Parliament, and to make provision in respect of the said oaths for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion."

said, he understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had no wish to proceed further to-night. A division was not expected, and had come upon them with surprise. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would consent to the Chairman reporting progress.

had no wish to proceed further that night if the hon. Gentleman objected.