The Press. — London, England, 1857-07-25 00:00:00

after a long and obstinate debate, in which the opinion of the committee seemed decidedly adverse to this restriction upon country probates, notwith standing warnings of tho Attorney-General and sug gestions by him as to the incompetency of the district courts, it was abandoned by him. On the motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, a clause allowing an appeal from the County Court to the Court of Probate, and another giving compensation to Sir John Dodson in case he be not appointed judge of the Court of Probate, were agreed to. Sir F. KELLY moved a clause requiring all probates granted by distnet registrars, so far as they relate to stock transferable at the Bank of England or the East India House, to be sealed by the Registrar of the Court of Probate in London. Me. MALINS opposed the clause as virtually con tinuing the evil of a double probate. It was ultimately negatived. The Chairman was then ordered to report pro gress. The Reformatory Schools Bill was read a third time and passed, after a protest against it by Mr. ALcock and Mr. fluoEssEri. The Clerks of Petty Sessions (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Loan Societies Bill, the Commons Enclosure Bill, and the Boundaries of Land (Ireland) Bill passed through committee. On the order for the second reading of the Chelsea New Bridge Bill, Mr. BENTINCK moved to defer it for three months. The second reading was, however, carried by O to 74, and the bill was ordered to be referred to a select committee. The remaining orders were then gone through, that for the second rea•iing of the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill being discharged. Lave was given to bring in certain bills, and after some further business the house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS—TUESDAY. THE RIGHT OF JEWS TO SIT IN PARLIAMENT. Lord CAMPBELL asked the Lord Chancellor for information as to the state of the appeal to their lordships' house in the case of " Miller v. Salomons " which turned on the question whether Jews could lawfully sit in Parliament. The noble and learned lord, after giving a brief history of the case, reas serting his approbation of the verdict of the judges, referred to Mr. Dillwyn's notice of motion in the House of Commons to admit Baron Rothschild by resolution, in defiance of the House of Lords and without the consent of the Crown : This I regard as a flagrant usurpation. To use the mildest term that I can bestow upon it, I should call it nothing less than a coup-d'etat, such as is sometimes resorted to in a neighbouring country to bring about a revolution. A law of this description is contrary to all law, because it attempts by a resolution of a single branch of the Legislature to repeal an Act of Parliament, and to pass a law against the expressed will of your lordships and without the sanction of the Sovereign. As to the case of Mr. Pease, in 1832, affording a pre cedent, Lord Campbell denied it venture to say that what was then done has not the smallest application to the case now to be considered. Mr. Pease was a Quaker. There was no question as to the manner in which the oath was to be taken. The real point was whether there were not Acts of Parliament passed by Commons, Lords, and King, by which the Quakers were absolved from taking oaths and from swearing to what appears in the Oath of Abjuration. It was our opinion, and it is my Srm and sincere opinion at this moment, that by two acts, one of which was passed in the reign of George 11., a Quaker was allowed to affirm in regard to all that appears in the Oath of Abjuration without swearing at all. The language of the statute is so strong that it admits of no other construction. It declares that wherever any oath is to be taken the Quakers are absolved from the necessity of swearing, and are allowed to affirm. . . . . My lords, I have been during the course of my parlia mentary life a strong supporter of the admission of Jews into Parliament. I should rejoice to see them members of the Legislature. Ido not regret the length to which I %tent when there was a controversy upon the question of privilege between the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench. But that was an action for doing that which the House of Commons, in the clearest exercise of its rights, had directed to be done. The house was bound to take up that question and to deal with it as a breach of privilege. But to declare it to be a breach of privilege to bring an action against a member of the House of Com mons, who had violated the law would be perfectly absurd. The House of Commons might just as well resolve that it would be a breach of privilege to bring an action on a bill of exchange against the acceptor, or to bring an action of ejectment to recover an estate that had belonged to a man's ancestors. The House of Commons might as well attack the prerogative of the Crown, and resolve that it would be a breach of privilege to acknowledge the appoint ment of any officer in the army or navy without the pre vious consent of the House of Commons, or a breach of privilege to declare war or conclude peace without their previous aanetion. My lords, if such a course should be adopted it seems to me that a revolution threatens this country, and that it may lead to the most serious cense quences. If this contest is wantonly stirred up between the House of Commons and the courts of law, I, for one, shall not be afraid of the consequences personally to my. THE P tt - E SS, JULY 25; 185 t self. I hope, however, that if the House of Commons should order me to be taken to Newgate or the Tower the people will rise in my defence. Ido not think that the House of Commons can suppose that the people will quietly see the judges dealt with in so arbitrary a manner, but I am prepared to do my duty if the attempt is made. I have, however, great confidence in those who now direct the deliberations of the House of Commons. I have had the honour to sit with two of the most distinguished leaders of that house, and I shall be very much mistaken if they give their sanction to the passing of such a resolu• tion. I have, indeed, read of a resolution that certain members of the other House of Parliament are said to have come to, in which the Prime Wnister is pressed and urged and almost compelled to agree to such a resolution ; but 1 have great confidence in the firmness of the present Prime Minister, and I believe that he will give them a very courteous but very decisive answer, that such a pr.). cee ling would be contrary to the law and constitution of the country. The Loan CHANCELLOR replied that the ease had been deferred from time to time on the petition of both parties. It would now probably stand over till next year, as the session was too advanced to allow of its being heard. Lord BROUGHAM spoke strongly against the pro posed resolution or the House of Commons. TRANSFER OF LAND. Lord Sr. LF.ONARDS called attention to the mea sures proposed for facilitating the transfer of land, and entered into a lengthened !explanation ,with regard to the subject, which from his peculiar pur suits he believed he understood better than any other noble lord. He pointed out the difficulties that were experienced in the conveyance of landed property, and the expense incurred, and referred to the proposition to supply a remedy by the establish ment of a general registration. He was perfectly satisfied, however, that a general registration would lead to more expense and to less advantage than to leave the law in its present state. The report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject, he admitted, exhibited learning, knowledge, and ability, but he described their proposition as one which would oblige the Government of the country to open an insurance office for titles. Now, he Lord St. Leonards) proposed by his bill to render titles more simple, and to afford facilities for the sale and purchase of land. Amongst the provisions was one by which it was enacted that a man who honestly buys land, shall, after twentyfive years' occupation, be held to be in secure possession of his purchase. By another provision it was enacted ►hat any man who shall sell an estate and wilfully conceal any settlement, for the purpose of inducing a purchaser to accept the title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and the person damnified may bring an action for the damage sustained. He also proposed that after an estate shall he bond fide sold no judgment or other matter of that sort on which execution has not issued shall bind the estate. In conclusion, the noble and learned lord laid his bill upon the table. After considerable discussion, in which the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord CAMPBELL took part, the bill was read a first time. Their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMON.S-TUESDAT. MALDON ELECTION. Sir J. TROLLOPE reported from the select corn mittee appointed to try the merits of the petitions against the return for the borough of Maldon that Mr. T. S. Western and Mr. J. B. Moore had been duly elected burgesses to serve in the present Par. liament for the said borough. BOROUGH OF LISBURNE. The SPEARER acquainted the house that he had received a letter from certain petitioners who had complained of an undue return for the borough of Lisburne, stating that they did not intend to prose cute that complaint. The clauses of the B ktiKING Btu., after much dis cussion, were reported without amendment. OATHS AMENDMENT DILL. Lord J. RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Act Ist and 2nd Victoria, chap. 105, intitled "An Act for removing Doubts as to the Validity of certain Oaths." His object, he said, was to bring in a bill declaratory of what he believed to be the general principle of the law of this country, and to apply it to the High Court of Parliament. That principle, established in the case of " Omichund v. Barker," was that oaths were to be taken in the form and manner binding upon the conscience of those who took the oath. In the Oath of Abjuration the words, " on the true faith of a Christian," it was clear, from the origin of the oath, were not a test of the Christianity of the person taking the oath, but of his loyalty; and the practice of Parliament, in the case of Quakers, showed that those words were not of the substance, but of the solemn form of the oath, to make it more binding upon Roman Catholics. It appeared to him that, with the concurrence of the Government, and with a large maj or ity o f th e House of Commons in its favour, the other house would not reject dr- bill. Looking to the course taken by the House of Lords in the case of Lord Wensleydale, he 'YPY thought it was somewhat grating to the House of Commons, and even humiliating, to be told that it had notthe power to permit a member elected by the city of Loudon to take his seat in that house : Now, I contend, sir, that the majority of the House of Commons wha have affirmed this principle of religions liberty ought not to allow themselves to be so baffled. Be the measure of redress what it may—be it by such a bill as that which the Government brought in, be it by such a bill as the one which I now propose, or be it by resolution am not saying in what way it should be done—but I am convinced that it behoves the dignity of this house — that it deeply affects the public privileges of this house — that it concerns the dignity and privileges of this house even more than religions liberty itself, but it also con cerns religious liberty—that we should not allow ourselves to be so blffle.i. I think, sir, it cannot be d -nied, so little is the progress that is male by any argument that can be adduced—by any weight of public opinion as shown by the votes of this house—that there is no chance that the next ten years, if we proceed in the same course, will be spent more profitably than the last ten years, or that at the end of that period we shall see the Jews nearer to admis sion or more relieved from disabilities than at this moment. Sir, conceiving this question to be a very serious one, I have wished to interpose a measure which might not partake of the apathy of resting content with what has been done, and should yet avoid the extreme of a resolution of this house by which would be incurred the risk of a conflict with the House of Lords. If the Government are prepared to support strenuously such a bill as I now pro pose to bring in—if they are inclined to give it a better chance in the House of Lords titan their late bill had—if they are inclined to take up this measure which I propose, I think, sir, we might look to an end of this contest. But if they are not so prepared, it is not my intention by introducing the bill to mislead the house by telling them that such a bill, depending only on my own efforts, is likely to receive the approbation of the House of Lords. Mr. WALPOLE argued that the course proposed by Lord John Russell was not the proper course for attaining the obj.ict ha had in view, and that it involved a danger of bringing about a collision with the House of Lords, which would cause a greater degradation and humiliation than the noble lord bad anticipated : There dropped from the noble lord a moat ominous sentence. He said he thought this house ought not to be left in a state of humiliation, and that it ought to take some steps immediately, be it by bill or be it by resolution, to settle this question. (Cheers.) If I understand aright these cheers it is high time we understood each other. The noble lord made sundry remarks about the power of Parliament, and he quoted a passage from Chief Justice Fortesene as to what that power was. Rut the power of Parliament is a totally different thing from the power of the House of Commons. If we are to understand by the power of Par liament the power of the House of Commons, the sooner that is avowed the better. The oath taken at that table is contained in an act passed, not by the House of Commons alone, but by the two Houses of Parliament, and by the authority of the Crown ; and if any member shall sit in this house without taking that oath be is liable to penalties. Csn this house relieve him from penalties imposed by Act of Parliament and the Crown ? Is the house going to enter into a conflict, not merely with the House of Lords, but with the courts of law ? Are you going to set yourselves above the judicial tribunals of the country? There was a time when a king of this country attempted to dispense with our laws, and it produced a revolution. There was also a time when the House of Commons attempted to legislate without the House of Lords and without the Crown, and of itself to make laws for this country. Let me point out to yon what followed. I have extracted from the Journals three resolutions then passed, which I will read to the house. The first resolution was dated January 4, 1646, and was as follows : Resolved,—That whatever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons iu Parliament assembled hath the force of luw, and all the people of the nation are concluded thereby, although the concurrence of King or house of Peers be not had thereto. ( A Member : The Commonwealth.) Yes, the Common. wealth, and anybody who sets up this House of Commons above the House of Lords and the Crown establishes a Commonwealth. Then on February the Bth, HUH, I find the following, and you will see that the House of Commons had taken a rapid start : Resolved,—Tnat the House of Peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an act be brought in for that purpose. Again, on the 7th of February, 16&R,;1 find the following resolution : Resolved,—That the office of King In this realm, and that the powers thereof in a single person, is nunesessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and good of the people, and that it ought to be abolished. Then we are told that this was at the time of the Common- wealth. It shows what kind of commonwealth you will arrive at if you once set aside the laws. I would rather that you let fifty Jews into Parliament in a regular way than that for the purpose of introducing one you should break through the Constitution. The oath in question had been enac..ed by the two Houses of Parliament, and one of his three objections to the motion was that the bill must inevitably Wing about a collision with the House of Lords. Mr. DILLWYN desired to avoid a collision with the House of Lords, but thought that house should not be allowed to sit in judgment upon the proper prvi leges of the House of Commons. At the same time he had a 4 3ubt as to the expediency of the course