24 FEBRUARY 1849, Page 10

POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

Yesterday evening, the House of Commons again went into Committee on the oaths taken by the Members of both Houses, in order to consider an amendment moved by Mr. VERNON SMITH on Lord John Russell's resolu- tion,—namely, "That it is expedient to abolish all oaths except the oath of allegiance and fidelity to her Majesty." Opposed by Lord Jona Ros- asix, as disturbing the settlement of 1829, and supported by Mr. HOME, the amendment was negatived, by 140 to 68. Mr. BAKERS then explained an amendment which the forms of the House obliged him to postpone to a later stage, binding Members to do nothing in- jurious to the Established Church, in the same way that Roman Catholic Members are bound. This did not meet with much support: even Mr. Nawmasra and Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND had scruples against raising the question. Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected, that whereas the pledge was a condition on the admission of Roman Catholic Members, it would form a spew restriction on Members who have already a right to sit in the House.

An incidental conversation arose respecting the interpretation of the Roman Catholic oath. Mr. Joust O'CONNELL believed that it involved no restriction on votes touching the revenues of the Protestant Church, The Earl of ARUNDEL put a very strict construction upon it, and had felt bound to abstain from voting upon Mr. Vernon Smith's motion, as it would relieve him of the condition which accompanied his right to vote. Mr. SHIM. took a view neither so lax as Mr. John O'Connell nor so strict as Lord Arundel; and he asked for a declaratory act to define the point on which such different opinions exist. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL called for an authoritative interpretation from Sir Robert Peel. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the oath was not introduced by him, in 1829, but by Mr. Wilmot Horton; its adoption was the act of the Legislature; and Sir Robert thought it would be a dangerous precedent for a private individual to give a legis- lative construction of it. He believed that Members always, in practice, put a conscientious interpretation upon the oath.

Lord John Russell's resolution was reported to the House, and adopted; the corresponding bill was brought in, and ordered for a second reading on the 16th of April. A batch of Irish subjects and bills occupied the House,—the Relief of Distress Bill, which was read a second time; the Vice:Guardians of Unions Bill, better to declare certain powers; and some others to amend the Cri- minal Law.

In the course of the conversations, Lord Joax RUSSELL made some state- ments. Several persons have intimated an intention of entering the New Roman Catholic Colleges, to be opened on the 1st of October next. It would be necessary within the next fortnight to bring forward some mea- sure with reference to the immediate distress in Ireland. Resolutions from the Select Committee on the Irish Poor-law (affirming the principle of a national rating) had been reported to the House that day, ana due notice would be given of a bill which Government intended to introduce.

In the other House, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill was read a se- cond time, with an explanatory statement by the Marquis of LawsnowNE. Lord BROUGHAM and Lord MoNTEAGLE only objected that the bill should be continued for so short a time. Lord Brougham showed that the short du- ration of the bill was inconsistent with the representations of Lord Claren- don's letter, which evidently contemplated a more permanent measure. No man could say that rebellion would be at an end in Ireland by the let of August, or the 1st of September. An end to rebellion in Irelandl—there

might be an end to some of their lives! But it would be very in- convenient to have a bill of that kind introduced again in June or July; as it would then impede public business, and might give rise to much mischievous agitation. Lord Brougham added some forcible remarks on the conduct of the Irish—unrivalled in the obscura diligent in of agitation and the pram negligentia malorum. He enlarged on the miscon- duct of a juryman, landlord of a principal hotel in Dublin, who, sitting in the jury-box, clapped his hands at the speech of a counsel for the de- fence, and cried "Hurrah for Repeal!" That country was not fit for trial by jury. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE intimated that at the next stage of the bill, on Monday, he should move the suspension of the standing orders.

There was also some conversation, originating with Lord STANLEY on the suppression of the Anson Penitentiary; but it elicited nothing fresh. Apropos to returns respecting highways, the Duke of RICHMOND protested against saddling the county-rates with 8,000,000/. of turnpike debt; and declared that soon the whole voice of the country would demand a revision of the local taxation.