peace and tranquillity, I say it is better that these questions should not be disturbed. In my mind no sufficient reasons have been urged for making this change, and I therefore hope that the House will refuse to accede to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion.

MR. VERNON SMITH said, that perhaps he might be permitted to address the House for a few moments as nearly ten years ago he had made a proposal upon this subject, and had pointed out that it would be better to reduce the Roman Catho

country an idea that you are doing away | may go on with other questions, and you with what they have considered a great will never come to any settlement of these security to our Protestant Establishment. questions. For the sake, therefore, of If the noble Lord will say that there is anything objectionable in the oath, I will agree with him that we ought to consider the propriety of altering it; but Roman Catholic after Roman Catholic has come to this table since 1829 and taken it without saying that there was anything objectionable in it. And mark how the argument turns the other way. If you say that this oath is to be done away with, will not the Protestant people of this country ask by implication and inference, what is it that the Roman Catholics wish to do? When the oath is removed will not the Pro-lic oath in length, and throw the whole into testants logically say to the Roman Catholics, "Are you not, then, going for the future to defend to the utmost of your power the settlement of property within the realm as established by law? Do you not disavow and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the Protestant Church Establishment?" Will they not ask whe. ther the Roman Catholics are going to exercise " any privileges they may possess to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and the Protestant Government ?" Do not let me be understood to say that I think the Roman Catholics are meditating any such things, but unless there is something in the oath which is objectionable in itself, it is certainly a strong argument by inference from the alteration that you wish to do something which you are now bound by the oath not to do. I have also a stronger reason than this against this alteration, and it is one on which I have repeatedly acted in the House, and particularly in voting against the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire for the abolition of the grant to Maynooth. The noble Lord, then Member for the City, once said in this House and I think it was one of the wisest of his many wise sayings-that when it had once been settled, after much deliberation and discussion, it was not expedient to reopen a question which, accordingly as it might be opened in one direction, you must be forced to open in another. If you open this question as to the terms on which the Roman Catholics ought to be admitted - and I wish them to have the fullest capacities you will weaken the argument which is constantly urged against the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, derived from a settlement of the question which he seeks to disturb. And so you

one single and simple form. His noble Friend the Member for the City (Lord John Russell,) however, rejected that proposal, on the ground that he was anxious to carry the measure for bringing the Jews into Parliament, and he did not think it desirable at that time to alter the oath. He was, therefore, happy to hear the powerful speech which his noble Friend had made in favour of the alteration of the Roman Catholic oath. Circumstances had now completely altered, and he would shortly point out how. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) he had not heard the debate with any pain, for it had been conducted with all the delicacy which the subject demanded. Nor was there any reason to complain of the question being brought forward, for the right hon. and learned Member for Ennis had given notice of his intention last Session; and he said then, that he did not consider the question settled as far as the Roman Catholics were concerned. It was asked why the oath should be more offensive to Roman Catholics now than it was in 1829 ? It was more offensive now to them because the Protestants had declared it to be offensive to themselves, and had struck all these expressions out of their own oath, to use the right hon. Gentleman's language, as "superfluous and obsolete." Why, therefore, should they not be struck out of the Roman Catholic oath? Why should the Catholics be called upon solemnly to disclaim that which nobody suspected them for a moment of believing or contemplating. Why were they to be called on to declare that they were not abetters of assassination? or that they took this oath without equivocation, which was as much as to say that if they did not declare that there was no equivocation there would

He was anxious that all that was necessary should be embodied in one oath, applicable to all hon. Members alike, and having no objection to the proposal of his right hon. Friend, he should give it his support.

be no security that they were not perjured? | faith of a Christian," by which they The right hon. Gentleman had said he meant many things as different as Rothought the alteration of this oath would man Catholicism could be from the Church fill Protestant minds with alarm; but he of England. Then there was the Catholic (Mr. Vernon Smith) could not help that un- oath, and again there was that subterfuge reasonable alarm, or be stopped by it when by which the Jews were admitted to Parhis object was to take away what filled liament; so there were three different Catholic minds with disgust. But why modes of taking oaths on admission to should the alteration of this oath be sup- Parliament, by upholding which he held posed to endanger the Church of England? that the consequence would be to make Was there any occasion for alarm? For the House ridiculous in the eyes of the thirty years Roman Catholics had sat in Par-country. liament; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, (Mr. Spooner) who was their greatest adversary in Parliament, said that he had nothing to complain of against them in matters concerning their oath. As to the re-opening of the question, it was reopened last Session. And when the House assented to that miserable manœuvre for admitting Jews into Parliament, it was for that especial purpose only, without affecting the claims of the Roman Catholics. But it necessarily opened the question. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had talked of destroying the security provided in 1829, but that security had been thought to be none by its opponents, and not a single vote had been gained by it. Justice Bushe had eloquently said of such oaths, they were no securities for no dangers." It appeared, however, as if the right hon. Gentleman were rather afraid the raising of this question would induce the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) behind him to bring forward his views once more upon Maynooth, which the House had decided upon many occasions against them. He had no belief or apprehension of any such consequence now. He would next observe, with regard to the course to be adopted by the House upon this Motion, that if his right hon. and learned Friend obtained the assent of the House to going into Committee, it would be open to those who concurred with him that some expressions in the oaths were superfluous and obsolete to allow them to be expunged; and afterwards they could discuss the question of the interference with the Church of England. For his own part, he should be quite content to go the whole length with his right hon. and learned Friend, and say that the Oath of Allegiance was all that was necessary. As the thing stood, the oath was as ridiculous as it was unnecessary. For now they had an oath open to all Protestant Members who were called upon to swear" on the true

66

MR. SPOONER said, that he had not intended to have said one word upon the subject now under consideration, had it not been for the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke. That right hon. Gentleman was very much mistaken if he supposed him (Mr. Spooner) to be content with the Maynooth question as it stood. It was his intention at the proper time to submit that question again for the consideration of the House, and he should then claim the vote of his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Walpole) on the very grounds his right hon. Friend had stated as the reason of the vote he was about to give. His right hon. Friend says he agrees with the noble Lord that if there is anything in the oath objectionable in itself, that would be a reason for considering it, notwithstanding he admits that the oath was one of the conditions on which Roman Catholic Members were admitted into Parliament. Now, let his right hon. Friend apply the same reasoning to the question of Maynooth. He (Mr. Walpole) had never defended the grant to Maynooth, and if his (Mr. Spooner's) memory did not fail him, he (Mr. Walpole) had stated that the grant itself was objectionable, but that he looked upon it as a settled question. Acting upon the same principle, his right hon. Friend must vote for the repeal of the grant to Maynooth. He wished also to allude to another remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith). That right hon. Gentleman said that he defied any one to find in the debates of 1829 that the oath was required as a security But Mr. Canning, one of the greatest states men that ever lived, said, either in 1827 or 1828

"You object to admit Roman Catholics because

future occasion.

you say they are not bound by the moral obliga- division, he wished to give notice that tion of an oath. If so, what stops them from he should re-open the question upon a coming into this House? It is clear that they do feel bound by the moral obligation of an oath. If the oath, then, is sufficient to keep them out of Parliament, cannot you frame one which will be sufficient to direct and control them while they are in Parliament ?"

He (Mr. Spooner) believed that this oath was intended to control Roman Catholics in Parliament, and that it was part and parcel of the compact of 1829; and he warned the House that the proposed measure was another step in the progress of a design the object of which was to destroy the Protestant reformed religion as by law established.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he had been taunted with having brought forward and agitated this question, when there was perfect peace and harmony; but, considering there were rights to be settled in times of peace and quietness, as well as at others, this was an absurd argument. Further, he must deny that he was obnoxious to the charge, seeing that he had not been the first to originate the measure, as a similar oath had been proposed in 1854, which, however, was defeated by the combined prejudice which then existed against the Jews and the Roman Catholics. They admitted to the House by one form of oath the Dissenter, the Jew, the Deist, and the Atheist, if there were such; a different form of oath being reserved for Roman Catholics alone. He must beg leave to correct the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) in one particular. The question upon which the discussion referred to took place was not one of a prosecution by the Government. The Government of the day had nothing whatever to do with it. It was a prosecution undertaken by the Attorney General for Ireland by direction of the House, on the report of the chairman of the Mayo Election Committee-and on that occasion the noble Lord stated in that House that the prosecution ought to be entrusted to a public officer who was free from sectarianism. What did that infer, but that the Attorney General, who had the conduct of the prosecution, was influenced by religious prejudice? would however deny that he had ever done anything, in that House or elsewhere, to warrant such an attack, and he had no hesitation in stating that, wherever there had been a Catholic filling high office,

He

The House divided: Ayes 122; Noes 113: Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.
Anderson, Sir J.
Ayrton, A. S.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir

F. T.
Baring, T. G.
Bass, M. T.
Baxter, W. E.
Beamish, F. B.
Black, A.
Blake, J.
Bowyer, G.
Brocklehurst, J.
Brown, W.
Browne, Lord J. T.
Bruee, H. A.
Buchanan, W.
Buller, J. W.
Byng, hon. G.
Caird, J.
Campbell, R. J. R.
Clay, J.
Olifford, C. C.
Clive, G.
Cogan, W. H. F.
Collins, T.
Craufurd, E. H. J.
Crook, J.
Dalglish, R.
Davey, R.
Deasy, R.
Denison, hn. W. II. F.
De Vere, S. E.
Devereux, J. T.
Duff, Major L. D. G.
Dunkellin, Lord
Dunlop, A. M.
Elphinstone, Sir J.
Esmonde, J.
Evans, T. W.
Ewing, H. E. C.
Foley, J. H.
Forster, C.

Cox, W.

Fortesque, hon. F. D.
Fortescue, C. S.
Fox, W. J.
Garnett, W. J.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Gilpin, C.
Glyn, Geo. G.
Greene, J.
Greer, S. M'Curdy
Grey, R. W.
Gurney, J. II.
Hadfield, G.
Hamilton, C.
Hatchell, J.
Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W.G.
Headlam, T. E.
Herbert, rt. hon. H. A.
Hodgson, K. D.

not even the voice of slander had been
able to insinuate that he had not done
his duty. If defeated upon the present, Holland, E.

Knatchbull, W. F.
Knightley, R.
Knox, hon. W. S.
Langton, W. G.

Langton, H. G.

Lefroy, A.

Lovaine, Lord

Luce, T.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, Mr. JOHN FITZGERALD, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. Serjeant DEASY. House resumed.

BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS.

LEAVE REFUSED.

MR. CROOK said, he rose to move for

Lytton, rt. hon. Sir G. leave to bring in a Bill to place the em

G. L. B.

Macartney,

G.

Macaulay, K.

Mackie, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Malins, R.

Manners, Lord J.
Maxwell, hon. Col.

Miles, W.
Miller, T. J.
Miller, S. B.
Montgomery, Sir G.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

ployment of Women, Young Persons, and Children, in Bleaching Works, and Dyeing Works, under the regulations of the Factories' Act. The hardships suffered by women and children in these works were clearly set out in the evidence taken before a Committee of the House upon that subject. The master bleachers in Scotland had tried to mitigate the evils, but had only partially succeeded. The Committee had recommended that something ought to be done. The assistance of the Legislature was much needed. MR. AYRTON seconded the Motion. Motion made and Question proposed. MR. KIRK said, he opposed the Motion on sound and sufficient reason. A similar Bill had been brought in in 1854, and in 1857 the subject was referred to a Select Committee. The Chairman of the Committee who took, or seemed to take, the deepest interest in the subject-the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt)-was the very worst attendant of any Member of the Committee. The Committee was of opinion it was not a subject for Legislation, but that they ought to leave masters and workmen to settle their differences between themselves. It was not, and never could be, the interest of the employer to make men work overtime except upon extraordinary occasions, when employers were obliged to pay extra. It was not the interest of emWalpole, rt. hon. S. H. ployers as a rule to allow labourers to work Warre, J. A.

Naas, Lord
Newdegate, C. N.
North, Col.
Northcote, Sir S. H.
Onslow, G.
Packe, C. W,
Peel, rt. hon. Gen.
Pevensey, Visct.
Pigott, F.
Pryse, E. L.
Rebow, J. G.
Richardson, J.
Scott, hon. F.
Sibthorp, Major
Smith, Sir F.
Smyth, Col.
Spooner, R.
Stanhope, J. B.
Steuart, A.
Sturt, H. G.
Sturt, N.
Tempest, Lord A. V.
Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Vance, J.

Vansittart, G, H,

Vansittart, W.

Verner, Sir W.

Walcott, Adm.

Whiteside, rt. hon J.
Woodd, B. T.
Wynne, W. W. E.

TELLERS.

Whitmore, Mr.
Adams, Mr.

overtime, although they often ask to be permitted to do so. The Committee had faithfully performed its duties, and yet the hon. Gentleman now attempted to bring in a Bill almost similar. The hon. Gentleman did not attempt to bring the warehousemen in the large towns under its operation, although they in many instances performed the same duties as bleachers and dyers. He moved that the Motion be negatived.

MR. MACARTNEY said, he should support the views of the Committee. By a majority of 11 to 1 they agreed to the following Resolution :

"The nature of the work for women and children is, with some exception, healthy, light, and 2 E

cleanly, and is by them preferred to the works of the factory, although in the latter they are protected by law."

When an hon. Member on his own responsibility took such a step as this, he hoped the House would pause before it gave liberty to the hon. Gentleman to bring in the Bill.

MR. TURNER said, he should oppose its introductionon on the same grounds.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he hoped that the House would be favoured with the views of the President of the Board of Trade on this subject. If they were not prepared to legislate, it would be inexpedient to allow the Bill to be brought in. It could only disturb men's minds without settling the question.

MR. HENLEY said, this vexed question had been discussed for the last three or four years, but always at a very advanced hour of the night, when few hon. Members were present. The natural result was, that it had been sent to a Committee, which sat upon it for a great part of one Session, and for some part of another. The Members were divided in the proportion of seven to five on the main question. He fully concurred with the majority in thinking that the House should hesitate before it interfered between master and workman. He thought it unwise to bring in the Bill, until it had been proved that the masters had neglected the recommen dations of the Committee.

MR. PACKE said, that there was no difference of opinion amongst the Committee as to the existence of some grievances in respect of the women and children. The only difference was, as to the mode of remedying these grievances whether by agreement between the employers and the employed, or by legislative enactment. The Committee came to the opinion that the former was the pre ferable mode; but he would say that if, after a moderate time, the employers did not adopt the recommendation of the Committee, Parliament ought to interfere to protect the women and children. At present, however, he thought sufficient time had not been given to ascertain whether or MR. CHEETHAM said, that great imnot the masters would attend to the recom-provements were being voluntarily intromendations of the Committee, and on that ground he thought the Bill premature.

MR. COBBETT said, it had been proved before the Committee that young women worked in the bleach works from sixteen to eighteen hours a day, at what the hon. Member for Manchester called "a temperature somewhat higher than was desirable," namely, in rooms so hot that the girls' feet were burned by the heat of the nails in the floor, that they frequently fainted, and were laid on cold stones out side until their turn came round to go to work again. The first report was prepared by him, but the Committee would not consider that; and when they came to the question whether legislation should be resorted to, a doubt was raised as to whether the word "immediate" should be used. He submitted whether the time had not arrived when the difficulty should be dealt with. There was the same necessity now for legislation as ever, and he should support the hon. Member in his endeavours to deal with this subject.

MR. RICHARDSON said, he must take leave to doubt the correctness of the evidence with respect to the burning of the girls' feet in the stoves. In Ireland he believed that the employment of women and children in bleach-fields was gradually on the decrease, and that legislation would be found to be altogether unnecessary.

duced into those establishments, and things were progressing satisfactorily.

LORD JOHN MANNERS said, he be. lieved the time had not arrived for bringing in a Bill on this subject, and he thought the hon. Member ought to be content with the fact of having called the attention of the House to the report of the Committee which sat on this subject last Session.

MR. PEASE also expressed his opinion. that legislation at present on this subject would be premature.

Question put-The House divided:Ayes 30; Noes 108: Majority 78.

COUNTY PRISONS (IRELAND).

RETURN REFUSED.

MR. COGAN said, he rose to move for a return of the names of the Members of the Board of Superintendence of each County Prison in Ireland, specifying the number of Roman Catholics on each Board. The reason for the Motion was the paucity of Roman Catholics on these Boards, where it was of importance that some of those in authority should be of the same religious faith as the majority of prisoners, which necessarily, in the majority of instances, was composed of Catholics.

Motion made and Question proposed. LORD NAAS said, he would be prepared to show at a future time that the superin