course had been adopted by Her Majesty's officers had accordingly recommended sixty Government with reference to the criminal lockers and thirty weighers; but of these code passed last year by the Legislative ninety persons only ten were found, on Council of Malta, and sent home to be laid being submitted to examination, to be in before Her Majesty in Council, which con- any way fitted for the higher offices to tained sundry new enactments adverse to which they aspired. One of these had religious liberty; whether the provisions of been appointed to a higher office, the duthe said code (as far as related to offences ties of which he was discharging in a saagainst religion), of which a translation tisfactory manner. The Commissioners of was furnished to the House in a return Customs and the Treasury by no means delivered on the 15th day of August last, undervalued the principle established by had been adopted, altered, or cancelled; the House last year. They felt that its and whether Her Majesty's Government adoption would most probably have the efwere prepared to furnish any further in- fect of materially increasing the energy of formation of their intention in this matter? that class of officers, and in leading them LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think it is to qualify themselves for higher offices. not quite correct to say that the criminal He might mention as a proof of what code passed last year by the Legislative might be done by energetic self-cultivation. Assembly of Malta contained provisions that the only one of the inferior officers adverse to religious liberty, without saying that this enactment was more favourable to religious liberty than the law previously in force. With respect to the hon. Member's question, I have to state that, as great objections were taken in this House to that code, and as some of those objections were considered to be reasonable, the whole code was disallowed by Her Majesty's Government. A new code has since been enacted, and from this the whole of the chapter relating to offences against religion has been omitted. MR. WALPOLE said, he wished to know if the noble Lord had any objection to lay the new code on the table? LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that he had not. THE CUSTOMS OFFICERS - QUESTION. MR. APSLEY PELLATT said, he begged to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury whether the promotion of twofifths of the lockers and weighers in the Customs service, instead of one-fifth, as originally intended, had worked satisfactorily to the Government and the employés? MR. J. WILSON said, he was glad that this question had been put, because he believed that considerable disappointment existed in consequence of the very small number of inferior Customs officers who had been promoted to high situations. This, however, was not to be traced to the fault of the Commissioners, nor to any want of desire on their part to carry out the Resolution which the House passed on this subject during the last Session. The Board had issued instructions to the Surveyors General to recommend those officers whom they thought deserving of promotion. These who had accepted a higher position had originally entered the service as a porter in the weighing-office-the lowest in the establishment. IMPROVEMENTS IN NAVIGATION— CAPTAIN MAURY'S PLAN-QUESTION. MR. HEYWOOD said, he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was probable that an office would be established to co-operate with Captain Maury and the American Government in oceanic and other scientific observations; and whether the important collections of observations on currents, winds, and temperature, already in possession of the Admiralty, would be rendered accessible to the head of the proposed office? SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, he was happy to inform his hon. Friend that, amidst more pressing and less peaceful occupations, the subject to which he had adverted had not failed to attract the attention of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade and he (Sir J. Graham) sent Captain Beechy to the Conference at Brussels, and in consequence of his report, it was the intention of the Government to appoint an officer to whom the observations made both on board merchant ships and Queen's ships would be referred. A Vote for this purpose would be taken in the Navy Estimates; and orders had been issued to the commanders of Her Majesty's ships, directing that meteorological observations should be made every four watches that was, once every four hours-in every part of the world where Queen's ships were employed. An opportunity of making similar observations would also be furnished to a select number of merchant had not, however, been yet carried into ships-not fewer than one hundred-and effect. There was no doubt that the con the result of all these observations would be returned to the Board of Trade, where they would be digested. They would then be communicated to Captain Maury, as would also the reports already received. POST OFFICE ARRANGEMENTSRAILWAY IRREGULARITIES-QUESTION. MR. J. BALL said, he wished to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury whether, according to the regulations of the Post Office department, inquiry is instituted into each case of the non-arrival of mail trains within a reasonable interval from the hour fixed by the contracts made with the several railway companies; and whether sufficient means exist for instituting strict inquiry in such cases, and verifying the facts by sworn testimony? Also, whether any, and what, means had been taken by the authorities of the Post Office to render the London and North-Western Railway Company liable for the frequent and great irregularity in the arrival of the mail trains passing over that line; and whether the contracts for the conveyance as mails by railway companies are so framed of to make the latter liable to a pecuniary penalty in cases where the non-arrival of the mail train is caused by the act of servants of the railway company, as, for instance, the despatch of a slow goods train from a station immediately before the hour fixed for the arrival of the mail train? MR. J. WILSON said, that in reply to the first question, he had to state that whenever irregularities in the arrival of the mails took place, a letter was addressed by the Post Office authorities to the secretary of the railway company, requiring to be furnished with information as to the cause of the delay. It was the duty of the mail guard to note the time of the arrival of the mail at each station; but at present there was no way of verifying the facts with respect to any delays that took place by means of sworn testimony. It should, in justice to the railway companies, be stated that the irregularities complained of were sometimes caused by the Post Office, and to meet this the Postmaster General had proposed to some of the leading companies that a system of mutual fine should be established, so that the Post Office should pay a fine if the irregularity was caused by them, and, on the other hand, the railway company should be amerced if the fault was theirs. That arrangement tracts entered into with the various railway companies did make them liable in a pecuniary penalty for irregularities in the conveyance of the mails; but the Postmaster General felt that it would not be desirable, if it could be avoided, to enter into litigation with the railway companies. If, however, he was unable to secure that regularity which the country had a right to expect, he might be induced to apply to Parliament for greater powers with respect to the companies than he at present possessed. MR. SPOONER said, he wished to know who was to pay the fines-the Postmaster General or the public? MR. J. WILSON thought the hon. Gentleman would feel that it was no part of the duty of the Postmaster General to pay the fines incurred by the officers of the public in the discharge of public duties. In the town with which the hon. Gentleman was well acquainted-Birmingham-the number of letters had increased by several thousands per week, as compared with last year; and when it was recollected that the letters in the country generally had increased 70,000 per week, as compared with the number only a few weeks ago, it was quite clear that it was impossible at once to perfect arrangements for avoiding all the delays attendant upon this great increase of business. MR SPOONER: But who is to pay the fines incurred by the Post Office? MR. WILSON: They must be borne by the Post Office revenue. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I rise for the purpose of asking the House to go into a Committee of the whole House in order to consider the oaths at present administered to Members of Parliament on taking their seats, and also to persons taking office. In bringing forward this question, I wish the House to consider generally the state of the oaths at present taken on these occasions. I conceive it will be admitted at once that on so solemn an occasion as that of taking an oath, which is considered as a security to bind those who take it to the performance of certain duties, the oath they are to take as that security should be as simple and intelligible as possible, and that it should only bind the persons to such engagements as they can well and easily perform. If the House will go with me to the consideration of the oaths that are at present administered to Members on taking their seats in Parliament and on assuming office, I think they will agree with me in the conclusion which I draw, that it is almost a profanation to make persons bind themselves in the presence of Almighty God to engagements which are, many of them, totally out of place, and some of which have no application or reference to the present time. The first oath which is taken is the oath of allegiance : "I. A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. So help me God." can, that fanatic consulted the heads of his order as to whether it was lawful to kill a heretic, and, having obtained their approbation to that maxim, he proceeded with letters to the Court of the King of France, and having gained access to the monarch on pretence of presenting those letters, stabbed him with a poisoned dagger; that the King after a short time expired, and Mariana goes on to celebrate the insignem animi confidentiam of the assassin; and I think he adds, præclarum facinus. While, then, on the one hand, strong opposition was made to the supremacy of the Crown, it was on the other hand thought necessary that that supremacy should, for the sake of civil government, be firmly established. It was a matter altogether relating to the existence and the maintenance of the authority of the Sovereign; and so much was this the case that Lord Burleigh, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth, suggested to that wise Princess that it would be better to have a declaration that the persons who took the oath would be ready at all times to take up arms in defence of the Crown, because he said there were many Roman Catholics who felt themselves unable, from objections of conscience, to take the oath of supremacy, and would That is a plain and intelligible oath, that binds those who take it to allegiance to the Sovereign, and I do not think any reasonable objection can be taken to it. But immediately we come to the next oath, we find that there are assertions made in it which I conceive are quite unnecessary to be made at the present day. If we look through these oaths, we shall find, as a general observation, that they were framed to meet certain dangers which were dreaded at the time. Whether wisely or unwisely, those dangers were felt to exist, and these oaths were intended for security against them. With respect to the oath of supre-object to it, but who would have no objecmacy, the obligation to take it arose, as everyone was aware, from the contest which took place in the time of Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth with regard to the supremacy of the Crown, and the right which was claimed by the wearer of it to the obedience of all its subjects in all matters and in all cases. This contest, as we all know, was one of extreme violence-so much so that in one of the letters published by Sir Henry Ellis, of the British Museum, there is an account of a friar who said he tion to take an cath to defend the Queen against all who should oppose her title to the Throne. The whole matter was, in this respect, so well stated by one of the greatest orators who ever addressed this House-I mean Lord Plunket-that I cannot do better than quote his words. He stated, in a speech which he delivered in Parliament in 1823, what was the general policy of the period of the Reformation, and observed ciples were operative. The first was the unalienable establishment of the Protestant religion in these realms, as far as human regulation could affix permanence. The second was to put down and prevent the exercise of all religious professions as contumacious which were at variance with the religion so established. The third was to give the State the power of distinguishing the wellaffected from the disaffected, and to disable and disqualify the latter from being admitted into its high offices. Of those principles the first was the most important, and was inalienable; the second, after having been contended against for 300 years, was at length abandoned by the repeal of the law against recusancy; the third was intended as a test to separate the well-affected from the disaffected, and for that purpose the oath of supremacy was framed.”—[2 Hansard, viii. 1113.] "At the period of the Reformation three prin could not understand how it was that King Henry VIII.—or, probably, it might be in the time of Edward VI.-how it was that the King being a layman could be head of the Church; and, because he would not acknowledge that supremacy, he was burnt at the stake. On the other hand, those who opposed the supremacy of the Crown had among them a party who held doctrines of extreme violence, and such as, if acted upon, must have been fatal to all civil authority. I was reading only this morning a famous passage of the Jesuit Mariana, in which he describes with evident approbation the assassination of Henry III. of France by the Dominican monk Clement. He declares that Clement being a Domini-, In couformity with this opinion we have the dictum of Lord Eldon with respect to relieving the Earl Marshal from the oath of supremacy. Lord Eldon on that occasion said, that the oath of allegiance contained in itself the oath of supremacy. I should hold, therefore, that with respect to the first part of the oath of supremacy, it is at present totally unnecessary. It is "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 See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatso ever." I have shown you that that was the doctrine of a party at the time of the Reformation and immediately following. I do not believe that there are any persons who hold such a tenet at the present day, and I hold that it is wrong to call on persons in this House, and on those who take office, to say that they abhor, detest, and abjure such a doctrine, when it is in fact, an unwarrantable assumption to maintain that there are any persons liable to the suspicion of holding such a doctrine at the present day. The next affirmation of the oath of supremacy is "And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." was respect to them what have you done? Why, you have relieved the Roman Catholics, who were the objects of suspicion, from the obligation of this oath, while you oblige Protestants to say that no foreign prince, power, or potentate has or ought to have any authority in this realm. You do not oblige the Roman Catholics to say that the Pope has no authority in this Kingdom; but with regard to those about whom there is no suspicion at all-with regard to Protestants, who say there is no authority, civil or sacred, held in this country by any foreign prince or potentate, you make this declaration necessary, while, as I have previously said, you relieve Roman Catholics altogether from such a declaration. Such, then, was the quarrel which subsisted at the time of the Reformation, and which you have kept up to the present time. I come now to another oath which was intended against different dangers, and which, when framed, might be defended as necessary for the security of the State. After the Revolution the title to the Throne by James II., and those who followed him, being supported by Louis XIV., then the most powerful monarch in Europe, it was thought necessary by an oath of abjuration to take security from those admitted to Parliament and to office that they would not give countenance to the title of James II. or his successors. The last occasion on which this oath was altered and imposed by Parliament was now nearly ninety years ago-namely, in 1766, when a descendant of James II. was still living, and when the oath might still be considered necessary. The abjuration oath says "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 James II., and since his decease pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King and took upon himself the style and title of King of England, by the name of James III., or of Scotlan, by the name of James VIII., or the style and title of King of Great Britain, hath any right or title whatsoever to the Crown of this rea m, or any other the dominions thereunto belonging; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to any of With regard to that declaration, it is again evident that it was a declaration which was intended to operate against Roman Catholics, who maintained that the Pope had lawful authority in this Kingdom; and so long as it was maintained that it necessary to declare that no such authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, should be held, it might be reasonable-I do not say it was reasonable, but if it was any security against that spiritual authority, it might be right that all persons should take that oath on coming to the table of the House, and on being admitted to office. But, with regard to the Roman Catholics-the persons to whose consciences this oath was a very great hardship-with respect to whom there were in the reign of Elizabeth who did take the oath, while there were a That is the very solemn delaration imposed great many who did not take it, and who by Parliament in 1766, renewed from in later times have refused altogether to former days, and not imposed without some take any such oaths, declaring, in the first presumed imperative necessity. But, then, place, that they considered the spiritual I say that which is generally known-that authority exercised by the Pope to be there are no descendants of James II. now rightly exercised, and, in the next place, existing to claim such obedience; and is that he ought to have such authority-with it not a mockery of this House to call many them." 278 upon its Members to " renounce, refuse, gentlemen rode out with arms, in order and abjure" all allegiance and obedience that they might be able to meet those to persons who everybody knows are not who might assault them; but when, by in existence, and cannot prefer any such the establishment of police and a military claim. The oath of abjuration goes on to force, that kind of protection was no promise support to the successors to the longer considered necessary, gentlemen no Crown; and in the last sentence there is longer went out armed. At the end of the obviously again a reference to those unwise last century, when the roads in the neighdoctrines that were held at the time of the bourhood of London were infested by highReformation, and to those persons who waymen, a gentleman going across Hounwere supposed to hold the belief that they slow Heath in his coach took a brace of could free themselves by equivocation from pistols with him in the carriage, ready for the obligation of an oath. It closed with defence against the highwaymen; but these words:when the roads were rendered safe and no danger existed, no one then thought of putting pistols in his carriage. Then, what I ask in respect to these oaths is, that you will act just as you would do in common life, and, as the danger has ceased, not to continue any longer the precautions. I use this comparison as to the way in which men act in their common conduct, but the argument is very much stronger; for, looking at all the considerations that are involved in a solemn appeal to the Almighty, and which appear in the terms of an oath, it ought to be a very solemn proceeding; but, if couched in terms that are no longer applicable, and merely a preservation of useless formali. ties, it becomes a mere mockery. The oath which I propose, and which I am sure will contain quite enough, at least, for the security of the Crown, will be in these terms. “And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the 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 whatever. And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian." Now, it has been clearly ascertained, and ascertained within the last few years more clearly than it was ever ascertained before, that these words were adopted, especially the words" on the true faith of a Christian,' in the reign of James 1., in concern at the discovery of a treatise written or corrected by the Jesuit Garnet, which bore out what was said against the Jesuits even by Roman Catholics who did not belong to that body. It was maintained that there were persons ready to make a declaration, and at the same time repcat certain words mentally which they believed relieved them from the obligation under which they had come; and it was conceived that by putting in very solemn words into the oath declaring that it was taken in the plain meaning of the words, and without any equivocation or mental reservation, these dangerous persons would be deterred from taking the oath. With respect to this, again, it is obvious that that danger no longer exists that this doctrine, against which Pascal wrote, is no longer a doctrine that influences the conduct of men, and, ac. cordingly, therefore, the danger, though it might have existed in former days, is not one which it is necessary now to guard against. What I now intend to propose to this House is, that all those fortificacations and barriers which have been proved to be ill-timed and unnecessary, should be got rid of. In doing so, I only propose that which with regard to common life and the usual conditions of men, is constantly acted upon. In the days when all the roads in this country were unsafe, The noble Lord here read the terms of the oath, as follow: "I, A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Iler Majesty Queen VicPower against all Conspiracies and Attempts whattoria, and will defend Her to the utmost of my ever 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, Iler Heirs and Successors, all Treasons against Her, or them; and I do faithfully promise and traitorous Conspiracies which may be formed to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my Power, the Succession of the Crown, which Succession, by an Act intituled, An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the Heirs of Her Body, being Protestants, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any Obedience or Allegiance unto any other Person claiming or pretending Right to the Crown of this Realm; and I do declare that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate hath or ought to have any temporal or civil Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, or Pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this Realm. So help me God." There are two other points to which I wish to call the attention of the House. One |