On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    with theviwr of sending them to the'right hon . member for Buckingham , being jperjectly sure that he would turn them to the best account in the House of Commons . " In referring to Mr . Baring ' s speech , he complimented him on his dexterity in drawing the attention of the committee to small and secondary matters . He incidentally mentioned that he should comply , vrith a suggestion which had been made , and shonld amend the resolutions by limiting the rate of interest to 4 / . per cent . . Explaining the necessity for the proposed Exchequer ~ bonds in the same way as he . had done in hik original statement , he denied

    that his plan was one , for a loan , and remarked that Mr . Baring ' s definition excluded everything that was known as a loan ia Hhis country . It was playing withwoids to call Exchec [ uer-l > onds a loan . They wete not a creation of stock , or of a debt permanent in its character , but were a portion of the unfunded 4 &bt Boinewhat more permanent than the Exchequer-bilis . They were a very rational security , and public opinion was in their favour . He would not itreat this , after the disclaimers which had been i made ; as a vote of want of confidence , but , if it were not one , what else was it ? The proposal had

    ttb | been condemiied as excessive , or as mconvenieni ^ or luiacceptable to the public , nor bad it beea isald ^ h < it " th 0 ^ mdney ought to be raised hy l £ x ~ . ^ c )| i ^ er-biUs , jind , therefore , what was the mean-J ^ pf th ^ ^ en ^ kui ? Itvinuat mean , that there ought to be a loan in the ordinary sense of ithe word .-During i-Mr . Gladstone ' s treatment of , ihis-part of 'the questionhe remarked upon a ^ ta ^ t in Hr . ^ Disraeli' s . speech , that he had imposed ithlbi ?> iiia 3 titax out of spleen against the party' he fcadquittedj and , siud that gentleman who could "believe such basenejBS possible must be beyond the reach of any appeal he could make , and , therefore , Tie ' app ^ r ^ d lfc . iDj ( sraeli thiit such charges' might he made , but would in future be treated by himself with silence . Hfe jthen nrored t . hn . t ™ rPHist . inor n . loan ha

    W ^ act ^ g in a spirit of Mendship to the land , which m ^ t ^ eiri ^ . ^ l ^" j ^^ M ^^" . pl ^ ifepj ^( fflr ?^ r ¦ i ^ gj ^^ efiipapeH .. ' , Tet it -was ^ 1 ^ - !^^^^^ S ^^^^^^^^^ y ^ - i ^ i set ^ P ^^ . ^ il ^ n .: ' ¦ ^ He jdisavo ^ ed apy idea of unworthy ^ ffi ^ epp ^ i ^ M (^|^ j ^ gr 4 tted . if . he had spoken ^ yi ^'^ & ^^^ 0 ^ M that ; great man , to "T ^ ose ' -ertorsj he ; ha 3 only referred for the sake of contrasting them with the gallant efforts made to But to

    i ^ deem them . Mr . Disraeli desired repeat 3 £ r . Pitt ' s errors in the light of experience , and without the excused which could he offered for them . In answer to the allusion to the loan of 1847 , he said that the circutngtarices were in no degree parallel , "but added that he did not think the country would Mfe been ' rmglygBjf bad condition even if that ; loan had been made payable at a certain time . He coneluded by challengingrdiflCUBsibn , in intelligible form , o £ anr of tnVMtters ihat-haa . 1 beenjraised , and

    adding that the Government , came to the House to ask tot tfce ; means of Carrying dip ihe war , and / were convmced , as Mr . Disraeli had said , that the decision would > e given with regard to the advantage of the country . ' ¦ ' / _ . . ; , . . . . . . Mr . Babtng replied , declaring that he believed the amount asked . for was not necessary , that the Exchequer market had been injured , and that improvidence liad been displayed . He declared , with some warnitli ; , that what he had intended to do he should have done openly , had he had any other intention than that expressed in the amendment . The committee divided

    , after eight hours and a halfs discussion , and the numbers were , for the resotion , 2 $ 0 ; for Mr . Baring's amendment , 186 ; majority for the Government , 104 . Loud cheering fallowed the announcement . The resolutions moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were then put and agreed to , as follows : — " 1 . That the Commissioners of her Majesty ' s Treasury be authorised to issue Exchequer-bonds bearing interest at the rate of 31 . 10 s . per centum per annum , for any sums not exceeding in the whole 4 , 000 , 0002 ., at any prices and on any terms determined upon by the said commissioners , such bonds to be paid off at par at the expiration of any period or periods not exceeding six years from the date of such bonds . " *'•

    " 2 . The interest for all such Exchequer-bonds shall be payablti half-yearly , and shall bo charged upon and issued out of the growing produce of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom . " 8 . That in case the said Exchequer-bonds be not issued for the full sum of 4 , 000 , 000 £ , as hereinbefore mentioned , then the Commisaioners or her Majesty ' s Treasury be authorised to issue Exchequer-bills to such amount as , with the total amonnt for which such bonds shall be issued , will make up the whole sum of 4 , 000 , 000 / ., authorised to bo raised by these resolutions . "

    THE OATHS BILL DEBATE . DEFEAT OF MINISTERS . Tlie long-expected debate on riie second reading of the Oaths Bill , comprising the admission of the Jewa , took place on Thursday , and ended with the defeat of the Government in spite of the strenuous exertions of Mr . Gladstone and Lord John RuBsell . It will be scon that the real war-cry against the measure raised by the Opposition was " No Popery , " and the Protestant institutions in danger .

    Sir F&jsderick . Thbsicek led the attack , by moving that the hill be read a second time that day six months . He began by imputing to Lord John Bussell a reluctance to bring the bill on , and adverted to the state of public feeling on the subject , alleging that there had only been three petitions , with 166 signatures , in favour of the bill , one petition with 69 signatures for an alteration in the present oaths , and 481 petitions with 60 , 171 signatures against the bill . He charged his lordship with departing from his former professions of attachment to the Protestant Church , and allowing no consideration to stand in the way of his attainment of a favxmrjje object . After

    cautioning members not to be deluded into going into committee on the allegation that , because no portion of the Pietendert family- existed , an obsolete oath ought to be revised , he accused Lord J . Hussell of having , when elected with Baron Rothschild , given one of those inconsiderate ¦ pledges by which he was apt to embarrass himself , and added thai , session after session , he had kept his word by a measure of this kind , except in L 852 , when he tried to deal with the bath in one of his post-finality reform bills .

    The proposed measure was carried by decreasing majorities in that House , and rejected by increasing majorities in the House of Lords . The noble lord sought to break down all the defences of the Pro testant constitution in order that Jews night march over their ruins to sit side by * side with him . Adverting to his lordship ' s threat , that if this measure were rejected it might be a question whether the Jews should be seated by resolution , he described it as a desire to retrace bis previous constitutional course upon the subject . This bill was chiefly intended for the benefit of Roman Catholics and

    members of our own Church who were restless in regard to the supremacy of the Crown . - But the coalition into which tils lordship had entered rendered compromise inevitable ; and as in . the triumvirate each party sacrificed his private friends , " : Lord J . Russell had contributed the . supremacy of the Crown and the securities of the Protestant establishxment . He declared thathe should prefer silence on the-subject of supremacy to the maimed and mutilated recognition now proposed , and that he was fortified in this feeling by the authority of Sir Robert Peel . After a reference to'the vigour and nianliness of the Durham letter , he entered into a history of the supremacy

    oath , and insisted . on the jealousy with which any attempts to tamper with it should be regarded . It had been consecrated by its introduction into the coronation oath , and . it was now proposed that the' Crown should be alqae in recognising the Protestant constitution , and every subject was to be insulated from his Sovereign . EEe then examined , at great length , the reasons by which Lord John HuaseU had advocated , the bill upon its introduction , and declared that the circumstances i in which he had placed himself had enforced the present unhappy necessity of departing from bis -former declarations against changing the Roman

    Catholic oath . The oaths proposed were for the benefit * of the- Roman Catholics and Romanising members of the Church of England . Finally ,. he likened Lord John Russell to > Caligula , and said that he was trying to strike off the head of our Protestant safeguards at one blow , charged bis lordship with / being the aggressor in this matter , and the Opposition with being protective ; and expressing a strong confidence that the Protestants in the House would resist the measure , added that , if he failed , there were behind him men of stout courage and good hearts who would continue the resistance he offered .

    Mr . Gladstone next entered the arena ; commenting on the fresh difficulties Sir Frederick Thesiger had raised up by importing theological controversy into the debate . Warmly defending tlie character of Lord John Russell from the aspersions of Sir Frederick , and proving that his advocacy of the Jewish claims dated from a time anterior to his election for the city of London , Mr . Gladstone retorted the charge of inconsistency back upon Sir Frederick , reminding him of the various political relations in which he had stood to the stout and

    ablebodied persons to whom he alluded at the close of his speech . As far as the case of the Jews went , thatihad been adequately debated ; hu would proceed to the cases of the other two classes referred to "by Sir F . Thesiger , namely , those of Romanising members of the Church of England , and of the Roman Catholics . lie said that the oath of supremacy actually contained no recognition -whatever of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown , a doctrine which assuredly was asserted elsewhere , but not in the oath on which so much had heen said . The

    obligation of those to whom the supposed allusion had been made would remain substantially tlie same ns at present . Tlie doctrine of the supremacy in question was to be found in the 37 th Article , where the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was spoken of in clearer terms than in the untrue language of the oath , winch was also diversely interpreted . Were it otherwise , large classes who did not hold the ecclesiastical supremacy , and whose representatives sat in

    that House , would be excluded . He thought it would be matter « f regret if the House should attach any value to declarations against the Pope , our strength lying in the attachment of all classes to the constitution ; and he deprecated the introduction of religious discussions , believing that the more topics which offended tender consciences could be excluded from their debates , the better they would fulfil their duties to their country . He next urged that words l > y which Parliament sought to bind conscience should be clear and intelligible , which the woTds framed in 1829 , binding those who took the oath to respect the settlement of Church property , were not * and he suggested that the limiting an oath to one

    duty of a citizen went to weaken his obligations in other regards . He demanded wheAer the Roman Catholics were to sit in that House on terms of equality . If it had been intended to exclude them from certain discussions , the words which had not at the time been approved by the friends of the Roman Catholics should be retained . Bat if the Roman Catholics were to be on equality with * other members , the sooner the words were got rid of the better . They were framed at a time when Church property was looked upon as a sacred thing . But on last Tuesday night the House , including members of Opposition , voted for the extinction of Church property . He revered the principle of an oath , which tended to maintain the reverent frame of mind

    in which men should address themselves to solemn duties ; but words used in the presence of God should be used in the sense of that presented—should , be short , simple , and above all not ambiguous . ' The present oath wag a trap to the conscience of the Roman Catholic members , and he felt-that if he were a Roman Catholic it would place him in a situation of pain and dimculty . Reminding Sir F . Thesiger that Nero , and not Caligula , was the briginator of the " one neck" wish , he said tlat : he felt thankful to Lord John Russell for bundling up all their useless obligations into ¦ one , and presenting them to the axe of the executioner .

    After this opening combat , there ensued a regular skirmish among the . less prominent members . Mr . Napier resolutely but mildly attacked the bill , contending that Lord John Russell desired to destroy the safeguards of the Protestant religion provided by the Bill of Rights . Mr . J . G . Phh . ch * obe said the bill would release all beneficed clergymen from taking the oath of supremacy , and remove the protection at present existing against those who desired to combine the opinions of Rome with the emolu ments of the Church of England . Mr . H . T . Liddelx attacked and Sir Joshua Walmsusy supported the bill . Mr . Newdeoate was of course against the bill . Mr . Mialx , supported the bill . In answer to appeals to Dissenting members of the

    House , he said that if the measure were a just one , it would not be opposed by them merely because it was acceptable to classes with whom they differed . He did not believe that the influence of Rome was increasing , but if it were , political restrictions would not diminish it . We might as well try to exclude the suggestions of the evil one by shutting doors and windows . Why should Protestants be so constantly fearful for their own religion ? He also thought that all members of that House ought to be able to exercise an unfettered and uncrippled judgment in assisting to frame the laws of the country , and he gave every portion of the bill his cordial snpport . Mr . Whiteside followed the line adopted by Sir Frederick Thesiger , only he argued and declaimed with additional bitterness .

    Lord John Russell , remarked that in every former debate on this subject the House had heard that all Christians were united as against the Jews , who were a separate race ; but that night the latter had been almost omitted from the discussion , which had been devoted to the differences between Catholics and Protestants . After observing upon the use that had been made of history , he said that if the declamation he had been listening to meant anything at all , it implied that the Opposition were ready to reverse the policy of emancipation .: He sarcastically remarked upon the inconsistencies of previous speakers , who had alternately "described the oath of 1829 as framed with gTeat wisdom , and as a weak and mutilated form when its

    words were found in the bill before the House . He explained that we wanted no security against Protestants , and as regarded those against whom we had rightly or wrongly thought it necessary to talce bail , our suspicions were novr at an end . An oath , he urged , was a very solemn thing-, and ought not to be taken lightly , or in futile or unnecessary form , as was tlie case with the oath of supremacy . Nor did he tliink the oath

    against the doctrine of deposition anil murder of kings was worth keeping up , as such doctrine formed no part of the Itoman Catholic belief . The words respecting tlie subversion of the Church Establishment were framed in 1829 . Now , ho believed that an oath impnrted solemnity and precision to a statement regarding facts , but the case was different when you called on men to swear to a duty which was opposed to their convictions . Ontlis were taken

    Untitled Article

    484 THE LEADER- [ Saturday , ^ ^^^— . —

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 27, 1854, page 484, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2040/page/4/