NOT-CONTENTS. Cranworth, L. (L.Chan- Lucan, E. cellor.) ham, E. Sydney, V. L. of Trade, Whether any inquiry has been instituted into the terrible loss of life in the Winchilsea and Notting- Coolie emigration ships in those voyages which are called by seamen the voyages of death; whether he is aware that during the last year 10 per cent of the Coolies who were embarked in those ships were drowned; and, whether, more particularly, any inquiry has been instituted into the loss of the Eagle Speed off Haliday Island in August last under most disastrous circumstances? Clandeboye, (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.) De Tabley, L. Foley, L. [Teller.] Lyveden, L. Mostyn, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) Teller.] Sundridge, L. (D. Ar gyll.) Clauses 43 to 53, inclusive, agreed to. Clause H (Power for Privy Council to require Statistical Returns of Cattle). On the Motion of The Earl of Powis Amendment made relieving the Local Authorities from the cost of making the Statistical Returns required by the Privy Council. Remaining clauses agreed to. Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Amendments reported; further Amendments made: Bill read 3; and passed, and sent to the Commons; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 43.) SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] A Bill to amend the Law relating to Salmon Fisheries in Scotland-Was presented by The Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY; read l. (No. 42.) House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, March 8, 1866. MINUTES.-SUPPLY-considered in Committee -ARMY ESTIMATES-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (on Account). MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, the health of Coolie emigrants on the voyage from India to the Mauritius and the West Indies has been a constant subject of anxiety to the Indian and the Home Governments. From 1856 to 1859 the mor tality was very large, and greater precautions were taken by the Indian Government, and the mortality decreased till within the last two years. In those two years the mortality has again increased; the cause of the deaths was a typhoid fever, but what the cause of this fever was has not, in spite of repeated inquiries, been distinctly ascertained. The Indian Government are, however, making further inquiries with the view of taking every precaution. In the wreck of the Eagle Speed, near Calcutta, 262 lives were lost. In the Fusileer, wrecked off Natal, twenty-six lives were lost. In the Sandringham, wrecked at Mauritius, nineteen were drowned. Nothing like 10 per cent of the Coolies embarked have been drowned. An inquiry has been held under the authority of the Indian Government into the loss of the Eagle Speed. The papers have just been received at the Board of Trade and shall be laid upon the table. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that six or seven coolie emigration ships have been lost, and that 1,200 lives were thus sacrificed? MR. MILNER GIBSON: I cannot state the exact number of vessels that were lost, but it is an over-statement to say that PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-New Forest Poor Re-10 per cent of the coolies embarked in the emigrant ships were drowned. lief.* First Reading-New Forest Poor Relief [57]. COOLIE EMIGRATION.-QUESTION. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board POOR LAW (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION. MR. DYCE NICOL said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether, in the present unsatisfactory state of the Law in respect to the management of the Poor in Scotland, and the heavy and increasing expense of litigation connected therewith, he intends to take any steps to remedy the entirely to local proprietors to resist such evil? THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, the Question put by my hon. Friend is very general in its terms; but, if I understand him correctly, he refers to the expense caused by the present Law of Settlement. I have only to say that I am very sensible of the evil complained of, and some years ago I introduced a measure calculated to remedy it. I did not then receive the amount of support I expected, but I shall be very glad to re-consider the matter. UNION RATING (IRELAND). QUESTION. COLONEL TOTTENHAM said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is his intention to introduce a measure this Session applying the principle of Union Rating to that part of the United Kingdom? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON) said, in reply, that it was not the intention of Her Ma jesty's Government to introduce this Session a measure with reference to Union Rating. IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. QUESTION. MR. DAWSON said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny, Whether it is his intention to bring on his Motion relative to the Irish Church Establishment on Tuesday, March 13th; and whether he will state the wording of the Resolution which he has given notice that he would move on that occasion ? SIR JOHN GRAY said, in reply, that it was his intention to bring forward his Motion on the 13th instant; he would that evening lay on the table the form of the Resolution he intended to move. THE THAMES NAVIGATION. QUESTION. MR. BATHURST said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Thames Navigation, as recommended by the Select Committee; whether he is aware that the Thames and Severn Railway Bill seeks power to convey the water pumped from the Thames Head Springs by a culvert into the watershed of the Severn; and whether it should be left proposals? MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, it is my intention to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Thames Navigation as recommended by the Select Committee. I am aware that the Thames and Severn Canal Navigation Bill contains certain provisions with respect to the use of water from the Thames Head Springs. As it is a disputed question whether the effect of those provisions will be to divert water from the Thames, and as it is also a disputed question whether the Company have or have not a vested right to the water they are proposing to use, I think that the Bill is one which ought to be dealt with by a Select Committee, before whom these questions may be investigated. I also am informed that the Conservators of the Thames have petitioned against and intend to oppose the Bill. FISHERIES (IRELAND).—QUESTION. MR. BLAKE said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he intends moving for leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Special Commissioners for Irish Fisheries, as contained in their Report for 1865? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON) said, in reply, that the question had already been under the consideration of the Government; he hoped that he should be able to introduce a measure giving effect to the recommendation of the Special Commissioners of Fisheries. CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.-QUESTIONS, MR. HUNT said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question respecting a Bill that had gone up to the other House-the Cattle Plague Bill. He understood that the Bill was likely to be returned to the House that night, with certain Amendments; and inasmuch as the Courts of Quarter Session are waiting to see the law before making new orders, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he will undertake that the Lords' Amendments will be considered to-morrow? SIR GEORGE GREY said, he understood that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships, and that many notices of Amendments had been given. It would be quite impossible, there fore, to say in what state the Bill would House adjourn on Friday, the 23rd instant, come down from the other House, and it to the Monday fortnight following. was due both to the House and to the country that hon. Members should have full opportunity of considering the measure in its altered condition. MR. CHAMBERS said, he would beg to ask, whether the attention of the Home Secretary has been called to the serious inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of the Metropolis by the refusal of the Magistrates of Middlesex and other neighbouring counties to allow manure to cross the boundaries of their districts? MR. BARING said, that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had called the attention of his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) to the inconvenience caused by the orders of the magistrates in the counties referred to by the hon. Member. Sir John Thwaites expressed his fear that, on account of the refusal of the magistrates to allow the manure to be sent from the city into the country, the public health might be endangered. He (Mr. Baring) had communicated with some of the magistrates, and trusted that arrangements might be made to obviate the difficulty. The Cattle Plague Bill contained some provisions with reference to the subject, and when the Bill came down from the House of Lords, the House could introduce into it any provisions which might seem desirable. Under these circumstances, the Government did not intend to issue any Order of Council upon the subject. ARMY-CAVALRY HORSES.-QUESTION. MR. O'REILLY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the horses of cavalry regiments lately sent to Ireland have been removed from England to that country; and, if so, whether this was not in violation of the Orders in Conncil for the prevention of the introduction of the Cattle Plague into the latter country? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, in reply, that cavalry horses had lately been sent to Ireland. The Order in Council referred to cattle only, and not to horses. THE EASTER RECESS.-QUESTION. COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN said, he would beg to ask, On what day the adjournment of the House for the Easter Recess will be moved? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is intended to move that the Sir George Grey PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL-[BILL 13.] (Sir G. Grey, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." MR. NEWDEGATE said, he had to present to the House considerably more than 100 petitions from Churchmen and Dissenters - Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England. He had examined the whole of them, and believed them to be genuine. The petitioners objected to the removal of those portions of the present Roman Catholic oath which were proposed to be abrogated by the Oaths Bill now before the House. MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to offer a few observations to the House before it comes to a decision on the proposal to read this Bill a second time. I conclude that this Bill has been introduced in consequence of the opinion of the late Parliament, and the vote that was given in favour of the measure of the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). I thought at the time there were very strong objections to that Bill, the purport of which was to abolish and then re-construct what has been called the Roman Catholic oath-the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members of this House. I thought, Sir, and I believe it is very generally felt by Members on both sides of the House, that it would have been advantageous that such a question should have been settled by the Government of the day.. There were many also who were of opinion that the time at which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was introduced was by no means felicitous; that it was, in fact, inopportune, and liable to a misinterpretation, which, however, I did not myself put upon it. But, irrespective of these objections, there was a very general opinion that the Motion was an impo litic one. There is no doubt that in the Roman Catholic oath there are some things that are obsolete, and some things that are invidious. If we were to construct an oath in this country de novo, I do not suppose that it would be constructed in the precise form in which the Roman Catholic oath taken at present stands. But, at the same time, although there is in the oath something that is obsolete and something I have never raised the cry of "the Church that is invidious, no one has pretended for in danger," which has sometimes been a moment that it constitutes anything like imputed to me by Gentlemen opposite witha practical grievance. On the contrary, out, I think, due reflection. I have often the presence of numerous Roman Catholic thought that if a severance took place beMembers in this House-and I am sure I tween Church and State, the State would am very glad to see them here, sitting on be in danger; but I never thought that both sides of the House-I say that the the Church would be in danger. I think presence of Roman Catholic Gentlemen of it is of great importance that the State high honour sitting in this House shows should be religious. I think it may be that there is no practical grievance in the doubted whether it is of advantage to the oath as it at present stands; and it is always Church that the Church should be political. unwise to disturb oaths of a political and But I have ever been of opinion that by Parliamentary character, unless there is a severing the union between the Church and necessity, and even an urgent necessity, the State, you would lower the sanctions of to do so. In an ancient and historic coun- public conduct in this country, and would try, it is impossible that public documents, gradually but certainly reduce Government and oaths above all public documents, to be a mere affair of police. Thereshould not possess some reference to the fore, in opposing the omission of that part past, and even some looking forward to of the oath which declares that a Member the future. If we were a new community of that religion will do nothing to injure establishing itself in the backwoods we the Established Church, it was not from could construct an oath, no doubt, of what any fear for the Church, but because it may be called abstract application. But appeared to me that the inevitable conseyou cannot act on mere theoretical princi- quence of the proposal of the right hon. ples in a complex society, and in an ancient Member for Limerick would be this :-He country famous for its history like Eng- came forward with a proposal to abolish land; and, therefore, when there is no the existing Roman Catholic oath, which practical grievance, I myself am of opinion contained matter that was obsolete and that the great inconvenience and miscon- matter that was invidious-respecting the ception which the alteration of oaths of omission of which there were not two this character must produce render it a opinions in this House, both sides being matter to be regretted that the question perfectly ready to omit them, and he said, was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell). Besides those portions of the oath which are obsolete and invidious-namely, a declaration that the oath was taken by Members of Parliament without any mental reservation, which an honourable mind would resent, and a further declaration that they would bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, and give up all thought of the restoration to the Throne of the House of Stuart, which no longer exists, there is one portion of the oath which will hardly be placed under either of those heads, a portion allowed by Roman Catholics themselves to have a real and living meaning, because it refers to existing interests, that is the declaration that they will do nothing that shall injuriously affect the Established Church. For my own part, I have ever been of opinion that the Established Church of this country does not depend upon oaths. I think the Church of England in all its branches is too strong, too deeply rooted in the affections of the people and traditions of the country, to depend for its maintenance upon any form of words of that character. Let us abolish the present Roman Catholic oath; let us omit that passage which declares that no Roman Catholic Member will do anything in this House which will at all affect the existence of the Established Church of the country, and which is a provision which leads to a certain perplexity of conscience on the part of Roman Catholic Members; and then let us construct a new Roman Catholic oath." I felt then, and I feel even more strongly now, that there could have been only one conclusion drawn by the great body of the people from such a course- -namely, that the present Roman Catholic oath gave, as far as the Established Church is concerned, a certain security, which it was proposed to omit, and that they were then to construct another Roman Catholic oath without such a security. Therefore, I then expressed an opinion by no means unpopular, I believe, on both sides of the House, that the best solution of this vexed question would be the construction of a uniform oath, to be taken by all Members of this House. It must be obvious that the construction of a uniform oath is not a very easy task. "I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and her will defend to the utmost of my power.' member that in this country the Sovereign is a constitutional Sovereign-that the succession is a constitutional succession-and, therefore, when we have an oath of allegiance it should be an oath to Her Majesty's heirs and successors as limited and described by that Constitution in which hon. Members of this House and all the subjects of the Queen, whatever may be their religion, completely agree. Therefore, Sir, I think it should be an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and to her heirs and successors, according as that succession is limited by the Act of Settlement. No Roman Catholic gentleman hesitates for a moment to acknowledge the Act of Settlement to be the law of the country. It is one of the most important and fundamental laws of the country, and I never heard a Roman Catholic hesitate in acknowledging that to be so. But can there be any doubt on the point? The right hon. Member for Limerick when he, last year, proposed the re-construction of the Roman Catholic oath -when he omitted all that was invidious, obsolete and unnecessary for the protection of the public interests-when he omitted that which many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House as well as on the other considered neither invidious, obsolete nor unimportant-and re-constructed a new Roman Catholic oath, he, as a Roman Catholic, inserted on the part of the Roman Catholic Members words declaratory of this full allegiance to the Act of Settlement, and to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, as li Now, if an oath of allegiance is merely a bald declaration of that character, it becomes the House to consider whether any oath of allegiance is necessary at all. [Mr. WHITE Hear, hear!] I should be proud of the approval of the hon. Member for Brighton conveyed in that cheer, did I not know that he cheers everybody and every-mited by that Act. On this subject, therething-opinions the most contrary, and sentiments the most opposed. He will, perhaps, take the opportunity of showing us the reasons why we should have no oath. But I am not of that opinion. I think it highly important that we should have an oath of allegiance, and I want to see an uniform oath of allegiance containing those materials and fundamental characteristics which I think an oath of allegiance ought to possess. Now, Sir, the first objection which I take to the oath of allegiance as proposed by Her Majesty's Government is that it is an oath of allegiance to the Queen alone, and not to her heirs and successors. I maintain, Sir, that an oath of allegiance in all countries should be dynastic. The great object of an oath of allegiance is to preserve from anarchy and to secure order -to take care that in any change of succession there should be no doubt-and, therefore, an oath of allegiance should essentially be dynastic. We ought to re Mr. Disraeli fore, there cannot be a doubt. I think great public inconvenience might arise from following the policy now recommended by the Government. Let us suppose-it is an improbable supposition-and, for the sake of his Royal Highness, I and the country should deeply deplore such an event; but when we are legislating upon a constitutional question of the highest interest it is our duty to foresee even the most remote and unlikely possibilities-let us suppose for a moment that the heir to the Crown thought fit to change his religion and become a Roman Catholic in what a situation would it place a subject of Her Majesty who had taken the oath of allegiance in the form containing no reference to the constitution of the country proposed by the Government? He would have taken the oath of allegiance without any reference to the Sovereiga being a constitutional Sovereign, and a combination of circumstances might arise |