inquiry and deliberation, ministers resolved to adopt the
postponed measure of abolishing the exclusion of foreign
vessels from our coasting trade.—After some conversation
in the committee, the house resumed, and leave
was given to bring in the bill.

On Monday, Feb. 6, Lord John RUSSELL introduced
his proposed measure respecting Parliamentary Oaths.
It would be admitted (he said) that all oaths required
upon such solemn occasions as that of a member taking
his seat, or a functionary assuming office, should be as
simple and intelligible as possible. It was almost a
profanation to make persons bind themselves in the presence
of Almighty God by oaths, many of which were out of
place, and some of which had no application or reference
to the present time. To the first oath, namely the oath
of fidelity, no reasonable objection could be made. The
oath of supremacy was dictated, as all were aware, by
circumstances attending the contest, in the reigns of
Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, with regard to the supremacy
of the crown. It was a matter altogether relating
to the maintenance of the sovereign's authority; and so
much was this the case that Lord Burleigh suggested to
Queen Elizabeth that there were many Roman Catholics
unable, from obligations of conscience, to take the oath
of supremacy, and the whole object of that oath would
be answered by an oath to defend the qtieen against all
who should attack her majesty's crown. The noble
lord then passed to the oath of abjuration, and argued
that if, as in the preceding instance, all dangers from
Popish authority within these realms had vanished, still
more completely had the apprehension of persons taking
up arms on behalf of the Pretender's family become
obsolete and extinct. He therefore proposed to the
house that they should get rid of the barriers which
were proved to be unnecessary. He then read the single
form of oath he proposed to substitute, and observed
that there were two points for the house to consider.
One was whether the oath should be applied to Roman
Catholics; the other concerned the omission of the
words, "On the true faith of a Christian." That phrase
had no other effect than to prevent Jews from sitting in
Parliament. If the Legislature desired such a prohibition,
let them formally insist on the introduction of the
sentence, and then express their intention in an
unmistakable manner. If, however, they chose to arrive
at the same result in a less direct mode by rejecting his
proposal, and retaining the Parliamentary oaths as they
now stood, he suggested that another and most grave
question would then be opened, namely, whether the
tenor of those oaths rested upon the authority of the
united legislation, or whether the House of Commons
did not hold in its own hands exclusively the power to
alter the formalities which regulated the admission of
its own members.—Sir F. THESIGER said that he would
not oppose the introduction of the bill; but, as he
considered it a mischievous measure, he should, on the
second reading, give it all the opposition in his power.

On Tuesday, February 7, Mr. BUTT called attention to
an article in the Times, in which Members of the House
were accused of trafficking in Places. The charge was
this:–At a dinner given at Tuam, attended by the
Archbishop of Tuam, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Moore, and some others, Dr. Gray, a person of some
position, made a speech. Dr. Gray stated, that at the
time when paid guardians were appointed in Ireland to
administer the affairs of the Poor-law Unions, a friend
of his consulted him as to a proposal made to him by a
member of the House of Commons to obtain for him the
appointment of a paid guardian if he would pay to the
member so obtaining the appointment one year's salary.
Dr. Gray had ascertained, however, that this office of
paid guardian the government were just about to
dispense with; and, therefore, if his friend had purchased
the appointment at the price of one year's salary, he
would only have enjoyed the office for about five
months. Another gentleman stated, that he knew of
his own knowledge that a member of this house received
£500 on condition to obtain the place of stipendiary
magistrate for the person paying the money, and with a
promise to be paid £500 more when the appointment
was made. It was stated that the minister was hard-
pressed for votes on one occasion; that the appointment
was obtained; and that then (it was hard to say
whether this aggravated the infamy of the transaction)
this gentleman who had purchased the office of stipendiary
magistrate turned round on the member who had
got the place for him, and refused to pay him the second
£500 Mr. Butt proposed that these statements should
be subjected to investigation before a Select Committee.
All doubt as to whether the article in the Times was a
breach of privilege would be set at rest by the following
passage:—"We have satisfied the theory of the
constitution, as far as the Irish division of the empire is
concerned, with no sparing hand; but we have not
succeeded in obtaining a body of representatives which an
Irishman could look upon with pleasure or an Englishman
without dismay. In the name of constitutional
government, we may be permitted to ask, what does the
section of Irish members represent beyond the embodied
wish of some hundred needy men to obtain place, salary,
and position?" Mr. Butt intimated that he did not mean
to follow up his motion by any penal proceedings against
the newspapers. The time had gone by when the house
could maintain its character by proceedings of that nature.
Lord John RUSSELL said—"I think the house cannot
have the slightest hesitation in acceding to the motion."
It was due to the honour of parliament and to the
character of the government and the Irish members.
They had Dr. Gray and Mr. Kelly, the persons who
made the charges, and therefore they had the means of
investigation: and that investigation he trusted would
be pursued to the utmost extent.—Mr. LUCAS felt
bound to say that, although not accountable for the
observations of Dr. Gray and Mr. Kelly, he believed one
at least of the statements in question to be strictly true.
He observed that the hon. and learned member had
spoken as if the article in the Times were entirely based
on the speeches at the Tuam dinner, whereas the Times
had brought similar charges against Irish members long
before Dr. Gray or Mr. Kelly had spoken. Mr. Lucas
then read an article in the Times, which appeared at the
end of last session. He had no objection to inquiry,
but he should object to that inquiry being held decisive
as to general facts. In conclusion, the hon. member
stated several instances of corruption, which he vouched
as authentic charges, although he resolutely refused to
name either the persons implicated, or his own authority.
—Mr. Thomas Duncombe hoped the committee
would at all events have Mr. Lucas before them. Mr.
Lucas said he believed the facts stated to be perfectly
true, and Mr. Duncombe was sure Mr. Lucas would not
say that unless he had reason for the belief. Mr.
Duncombe drew attention, not to an after-dinner speech, but
to a statement made on oath by a member of that house
before the Court of Chancery. The statement was made
by Mr. George Hudson, that he had distributed £6,300
in shares "to certain persons of influence connected
with the landed interest and parliament." to secure
their good offices; but that he could not disclose their
names, as he had distributed the shares under a pledge
of secresy. Mr. Duncombe quoted an article from the
Times, calling for an investigation. Would not Lord
John Russell, he asked, take some notice of the subject
when he brings in his bill to prevent the bribery and
corruption of the poor electors? Is a man who takes a
pot of beer or five sovereigns to be placed in comparison
with those who corrupt members of parliament? He
must say, that Mr. Hudson, in having to disgorge the
large sum of £54,000 would be the most ill-used of men,
unless the parties he corrupted returned him the money
[that is, the £6,300] he was compelled to return to the
company.—The motion was agreed to without dissent.

On Wednesday, February 8, Mr. HUDSON complained
of the manner in which his name had been introduced
by Mr. T. Duncombe in the debate of the previous
evening, and especially that heavy charges had been
preferred against his conduct without notice being
given to him. Referring to the statement of his having
recorded on oath that he had distributed railway shares
among members of parliament to secure their good
offices on a certain railway bill he said: "I never
have made, nor intended to make imputations. On my
honour I have made no charges against any member
of this house. I say it is utterly impossible, in my
long intercourse with this house and society, for any
gentleman, be he where he may, or be he who he may,